Abolish The Federal Reserve

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 18 May 2004 12:00:00 GMT
Russmo.com - Free Elections - cartoon commentary on the Abu Ghraib photographs. Hehe.

Nick Anderson at Marc Brands Liberty - Iraq Exit Strategy - cartoon commentary on America's failed attempts to get out of Iraq. Hehe. What he didn't show was Uncle Sam on the other side of the wall with a stack of bricks and a wheelbarrow full of concrete.

# I sent the following letter to the editor of The Mannsfield News Journal:

Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:18:31 -0400
To: "Mansfield News Journal" <chunnell@gannett.com>
From: "Bill St. Clair" <bill@billstclair.com>
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Cc: "Robert P. DeSanto" <prosecutor@ashlandcounty.org>

On May 27, Ashland County Prosecutor Robert P. DeSanto intends to argue at trial that Jeffrey L. "The Hunter" Jordan should be imprisoned for carrying a handgun in his car while driving through Ohio on December 29, 2003 on his way home to New Hampshire after visiting his family for the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Jordan is licensed by the state of New Hampshire to carry his handgun concealed. He is also licensed to drive a motor vehicle. For some reason, Mr. DeSanto is happy to honor the license to drive, but has a problem with the license to carry. What gives?

Travel is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. Carrying a weapon is mentioned, explicitly, by the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This means, in the words of L. Neil Smith, that "Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

Somebody please explain to me why a man is being tried for exercising an unalienable right. Shouldn't we be trying men who do not carry weapons, for endangering the lives of their families?

Bill St. Clair

# L. Neil Smith - The Works (So Far) of L. Neil Smith - transcription of a message Neil sent to smith2004. Contains a short description of each of his books to date, linked to a page on his web site containing the cover art and, usually, a link to where you can buy the book. [smith2004]

# Alexander "Ace" Baker at Strike the Root - The Origin of Money (And How It Was Stolen from You) - good article on why you should oppose, in spades, the existence of the Federal Reserve and the concept of deficit spending. [root]

Money. Everybody wants it, and you can always use more. But what is money? Where does it come from? Is it really the "root of all evil" as the Bible and Pink Floyd have said? Do we really need it? How did we all come to value little slips of paper with portraits of dead presidents on them? Why can't they just give everybody a million dollars and make us all rich? And why is any of this important to those who are concerned about human liberty?

I'll anticipate some conclusions here: Money is vital to a prosperous society, without it mankind could do no better than a primitive agricultural society. Money originates and evolves privately, in the market, as a solution to the problems presented by direct barter. Governments (in collusion with large Banks) around the globe have forcibly taken over and monopolized the creation of new money, and abolished the natural gold standard for the sole purpose of expanding their own power and confiscating wealth. All other "justifications" for government money are lies based on completely discredited economic hogwash. The unprecedented and artificial "fiat money" imposed on us now represents a grave threat to civilization itself.


It's very unlikely that anything extremely common, like sand, could ever become money because people just don't value common things as highly as rare things. That's good, for another very important quality of good, sound money is that it should be costly to produce. Briefly, this is because the ability to create money without cost carries with it the extraordinary power to redistribute real wealth to whoever is allowed to create it. More on this later.


What if you wanted to safely store some of your gold until you needed it? In many towns, the local goldsmith was the only one around with a decent safe, so Mr. Goldsmith (sensing a legitimate business opportunity) would allow you to warehouse your valuable money (for a small fee), issuing you a paper receipt, which would entitle you to reclaim your gold on demand. Once there were many such warehouse receipts floating around, people realized they could conveniently exchange the receipts as money, because everyone knew that these pieces of paper were "as good as gold."

As you may have guessed, the goldsmiths were the original bankers, and these warehouse receipts were the original paper money. Once paper money backed by gold became established, Mr. Goldsmith noticed something very interesting. On any given day, only a small percentage of townspeople actually came to reclaim their gold. And when they did come to redeem it, they didn't care if they got exactly the same gold back, only that they got the correct amount.

"Hmmmm" thought the less-than-honorable Mr. Goldsmith, "What's to stop me from just writing up some extra receipts for myself to spend? Sure, more and more people will come in to claim gold, but so what? Even if two or three times as many people start showing up, I'll have enough gold in reserve to cover it. I'm rich!" He was so proud of himself for his stroke of genius that he went right over and kissed himself in the mirror. And thus was born the fine art of counterfeiting, or "Fractional Reserve Banking" as bankers came to euphemistically call it.


The king had a different problem. Kings dream of empowering themselves and securing their place in history through conquest and imperialism. Trouble is, military adventures are very expensive and the peasants hate being taxed. Like bankers, kings too fear the wrath of an angry mob.

Well, leave it to Mr. Goldsmith to be struck with yet another bolt of evil brilliance. He goes to the king and says, "Look, make my bank the official bank, and tell the people they must accept my paper money for all debts. Grant me the exclusive right to print money, take anybody else who prints money and put them in jail. If you do that for me, oh royal one, here's what I'll do for you. Anytime you need financing for your war, just print up some pieces of paper and call them "government bonds." I'll "buy" the bonds from you with my paper money, then you'll have all the money you ever need!"

The king, being a politician, was good at lying and making up plausible sounding excuses. So he justified this new central banking cartel by claiming it was necessary to keep those greedy bankers in line. Get it? With a nod and a wink, the government pretends to be the ally of the people, while in reality seizing the money supply, creating a banking cartel, and destroying the market mechanism that was the people's only real recourse against the inherent dishonesty that is Fractional Reserve Banking.


The solution to all this, as in most things, is liberty. Under freedom, gold would almost certainly become money once again. A 100% reserve gold standard would have the benefit of preventing inflation (because the creation of new money is costly), and preventing deflation as well (because once gold money comes into existence, it stays in existence). The complete reliance on irredeemable paper money is unprecedented, having existed only since President Nixon destroyed the last vestige of the gold standard in 1971. Most of the major world currencies (the Yen, the Euro) are backed by the U.S. Dollar, which is backed by nothing...

# Jim Davies at Strike the Root - The Source of Evil - wonder how America lost its way between the liberty proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and today? Take a closer look at the Declaration. It wasn't about liberty, just a change in rulers. [root]

Sadly, it's only too plain that the Declarers of American Independence had no thought to create a society free of the menace of governments and their laws, but merely objected to the fact that they, the politicians close to the action, were being denied the chance to do the governing! Far from wanting no laws or even fewer laws, they were actually bellyaching about having too few.

They were not really different from any other revolutionary anywhere: They wanted to get rid of the present government so that they themselves could take power. Theirs was not a rebellion against power, just a rebellion against someone else's power.

# Michael Gaddy at The Price of Liberty - Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights - a little reminder that obtaining concealed carry permit is making a deal with the devil. You're saying, in no uncertain terms, that you do not have a right to protect your life or the lives of those you love. [price]

Let me draw an analogy for you, if I may. Let's say robbers beset your town. They are becoming more and more brazen in their theft of money and personal property. They have even taken to kidnapping your children and using them to help with their foul deeds. A group of citizens think they have finally found the solution to this mayhem. They go to see some of the people they know to be robbers. They ask, even beg these robbers for permission to protect themselves from the very actions perpetrated on them. After the negotiations are over, the citizens are most pleased with the agreement they have struck with the thieves.

First, anyone wishing to protect themselves must pay a fee to the robbers for permission to install fences, barred windows and even security systems. The robbers hold total control over who may or may not install these devises. Secondly, all citizens who are accepted to provide security devises for themselves must then provide the robbers with keys to all doors, windows and gates. They must also provide all codes to security and alarm systems and even allow the robbers to install the systems or teach them how to do so.

How totally absurd you say? But, is this not exactly what has happened with the massive rush by gun owners to secure concealed carry permits from the state?


How would you answer a judge who asked you, "Did you not acknowledge the right of the state to control firearms when you petitioned the state for the "right" to carry and paid them for it?"
Lawhobbit's answer to this question: [lrtdiscuss]
No, Your Honor, I did not. I paid the State for a piece of paper - costing me essentially a dollar thirty five a month - that would act as cheap insurance against interference by agents of the State in the exercise of my natural and constitutional right to keep and bear the tools of self defense. My payment of this cost was no different than my keeping of a small sum of money to give to any other criminal who'd seek to deprive me of life or liberty. My paying off a robber does not mean that I acquiesce to his behavior, only that it's less costly in this day and age than it is to defend the right. Money can be replaced - my life and liberty cannot. Much the same with my payment of money to the State for a card that would prevent it from depriving me of life or liberty on a whim. It's a cost of doing business in the modern age, and one that's preferential to the consequences.

# Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors - prescribe too much pain medication, go to jail. That's the message from the d.e.a. to America's physicians.

When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It's your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.

Add comment Edit post Add post