Monday, October 24, 2011

Rebuttal: How to Stabilize the Housing Market

 By Dan Beaulieu

Rebutting: How to Stabilize the Housing Market by Lawrence Summers

I find it hard to understand how someone could ever subscribe to the ideology of treating the illness with what caused it. Lawrence it seems you've spent a great deal of time with a magnifying glass to the situation, when all one needs to do is take a step back and look at the entire picture. The business cycle.

Essentially, what your advocating is exactly what Alan Greenspan did in 2000 to combat the collapse of the Dot-Com bubble, which itself was formed using your approach of high risk investing. Micromanaging the situation through Keynesian models will only result in redundancy.. To properly stabilize the economy we must understand how we arrived at our current crisis; we must understand the business cycle.

Bubbles form when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates below the natural levels of a market, it influences expansion of investments well beyond sustainable levels. This distorts the signals that business uses to assess risk. These distortions then lead businesses to believe that consumers have the savings to back up their investments. However, artificially low (below market) interest rates don’t generate new wealth to make good on investments. So when the bubble pops these fallacies are realized in lost investments.

The great bubble was largely attributed to the bad policies of Alan Greenspan who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 until 2006. Greenspan intervened in the recession that should’ve followed the dot-com bubble. Instead of accepting the natural recession that should have occurred in 2001, the Fed began expanding the Housing Market. This didn’t negate the previous bubble; it merely stalled it by creating a bigger bubble. The Fed arrogantly continued its efforts to stop recession through low interest rates and actual interest rates fell below historical averages. At that point the Fed had abandoned all monetary rules in attempts to prop the market.

Alan Greenspan slashed the federal fund targets from 6.5% in January of 2001 all the way down to 1% by June 2003. He fixed the rates at an artificial low of 1% for a full year, which encouraged more bad investments and caused a massive expansion of the bubble. Then, by June of 2006, Greenspan had raised it back to 5.25%, a move that popped the bubble and unleashed the havoc of three overdue recessions.

Treating the problem with the problem is exactly what got us into our financial crisis; microeconomics, Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve abusing our elastic money supply. To "fix" the housing market we need to stop setting the stage for bad investments and when the business cycle begins to decline, as it must, let it. Furthermore, in order to insure we never experience this magnitude of economic downfall again we must get back to a sound money and limit, if not dismantle, the Federal Reserve.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America Explained

By Dan Beaulieu

As most of us know Presidential front-runner Ron Paul has released a spending plan that will cut $1 trillion in government spending his first year in office. The plan essentially reduces the size of government back to 2006 levels and promises to balance the budget by 2016. I’d like to take readers over what his plan means to us as American citizens.


“Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.”

Regarding the departments his plan eliminates (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education), a simple Google search would unveil the tremendous waste and inefficiencies they produce. For example, let’s take the Department of Education, which was instated in 1979. Taxpayers pay around $100 billion per year to the Federal Government for them to simply send it back to the states, well not all of it comes back we waste roughly 10% in administration. Although the DOE was created to raise test scores and provide the best education possible. Since its creation our tests scores have plummeted over 30% in some fields, at $25,000 per student it’s safe to say... this money can be spent more wisely.

We are all familiar with the atrocities committed by the Transportation Security Administration [TSA], between diaper searches, groping of genitalia and an overall thuggish attitude all Americans should be furious with this tax funded program. However, many American’s justify this behavior as a necessary evil to ensure security. Ron Paul’s philosophy is “if a private company can secure the transportation of millions of dollars across the country, why couldn’t a private company secure the transportation of people?” essentially encouraging private enterprise to take over airline security. Let the airline’s hire private companies that specialize in security and surveillance and we’ll keep our tax dollars. The CIA can assist these companies where National Security comes into question by monitoring international travelers. America, we don’t have to trade our personal freedoms to be secure.

One of the most curious things is that even in our current state of economic crisis, rising food prices, foreclosed homes and unemployment at depression levels, we still manage to find it within ourselves to invade other countries and prop up future dictators. Our foreign aid involves taking money from the lower and middle classes here in America and giving it to rich bureaucrats in 3rd world countries. It should resonate as absurdity when one finds that we often fund both sides of a war, at the same time our country has families starving, we have businesses here that can’t afford to operate and we have protesters in the street, maybe it’s time to end this. Ron Paul calls for the end of all overseas spending on militarism and I believe most Americans would too if they really understood why we are over there. It’s not about terrorism and it’s not about “helping” the people of those countries. It's about large corporations and greedy people making money.

With these government cuts comes some inevitable Federal job loss. Ron Paul has taken this into consideration and has created a system where these jobs are phased out rather than slashed immediately. Keep in mind, it is impossible for government to make a job without taking one from the private sector (read Henry Hazlitt). That said, the smaller the Federal Workforce the larger the private sector work force. Private sector jobs are more integral than Federal jobs to a strong economy as the private sector are the producers.


“Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.”

This is fairly self-explanatory, Ron Paul will honor the promises we’ve made to our veterans and to those who have been paying into social security. Other entitlement programs will be phased out without harming those currently relying on the programs. Keep in mind that Social Security was projected to run out by 2024, so Ron Paul is the only candidate with a solid plan to fix that issue for seniors.


“Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

This is only to expected from a man like Ron Paul who, unlike 90% of other Congressmen, has never accepted a Congressional pension, money from lobbyist or any other government junket to the tune of millions of dollars. Ron Paul has always kept a tight budget and he commonly returns unused portion of office budget to the US Treasury. He has a long record of showing respect to our money.


“Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.”

Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul understands how the economy works. He is regarded as a champion of Austrian economics and is noted as an economic historian. Most American’s don’t understand the power of taxation; the cascading effect that occurs on our industry and workforce. Let’s look at how Ron Paul’s lower corporate tax, for example, would create jobs.
By allowing American companies to repatriate capital without being taxed in multiplicity, it would encourage trillions of dollars in new investments. When we, as businesses or individuals, keep our tax dollars it results in spending and investing. Spending leads higher production demands, while investing leads to efficiency and lower consumer prices, lower consumer prices leads to more consumer spending. This spending spurs intense demand on both finished and raw materials, ultimately demand for workers explodes. This one element would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, Ron Paul knows that.

Once America is on its feet, Ron Paul, as stated time and time again, would move to abolish the federal income tax.


“Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.”

Anyone who owns a business or knows someone who owns a business understands that our regulatory system is not only burdensome but is a primary cause of unemployment. Ron Paul isn’t for getting rid of important regulations, however, too many arbitrary regulations leads to job loss. We need to set the stage for prosperity, if it’s easier in America for a small business to succeed, than America goes back to work. Furthermore, deregulation coupled with Ron Paul’s lowered corporate tax will invite production back into America.


“Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
In 1971, at the behest of then Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, we departed from the gold standard and invited elasticity to our monetary policy. This gave the Fed ultimate control through inflation and the abuse of this power by Alan Greenspan is specifically what led us to our current crisis. What’s worse is the $16 trillion dollars that was secretly given to large banks, some foreign, was just put on the back of the taxpayer. The fact that more politicians aren’t calling for a full audit should be a red flag to where their loyalties lay, the people deserve to know where their money has gone.  I recently wrote an expose on Herman Cain’s involvement with the Federal Reserve and why it should concern us all, for those unfamiliar with the Herman Cain or the Fed I urge you to read it

Ron Paul, I am confident, will get the Federal Reserve under control and get us back on a gold standard. He will also set the stage for competing currencies, this will end the possibility of future abuses to our business cycle and we will enjoy a prosperity that the people have never known.


“Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.”
We should all take into consideration that Ron Paul bested 99.9% of the economic thinkers by accurately predicting our current economic crisis years before it happened. Ron Paul’s plan is economically sound and will lead us to a near future of prosperity along with safeguards to stop future crisis. Ron Paul is not alone in his synopsis and proposed treatment; many other noted economists have shown strong support of these ideas for decades. 

Those of you who can’t bring yourselves to terms with a certain portion of the plan keep in mind; Ron Paul offers a 3 year recovery while the inadequacy of plans presented by other candidates would almost certainly guarantee at least 10 years more of recession along with a high probability of re-occurrence.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Ron Paul: The Economic Benefits of Bringing Our Troops Home

 By Dan Beaulieu

I have heard many people say that with our economy in turmoil that brining home nearly a million troops would be disastrous to our unemployment. That somehow having our troops overseas is economically beneficial, ignoring the obvious costliness of the war. This notion is derived from the negligence of the arguer only looking at one side of the process, that is, soldiers being turned loose on the labor market.

Take into consideration the hundreds of billions we spend on these wars per year. This money doesn’t come into existence from thin air; it’s taken from the tax payers. Now as long as the government does not intervene by trying to provide compensation for the soldiers through taxing the people, the taxpayers retain more wealth than previously. This means that the taxpayers have additional funds to spend on products, food and businesses. This creates demand and ultimately higher productivity, more workers are needed. This process, as history shows, is rather fast.

Once demand puts the soldiers (now civilians) back to work, they not only become self-supporting they, with a steady paycheck, begin consuming more and the need for production rises further. Higher overall productive output results in increased national wealth. That said, we would be in a much better economic state after our troops come home.   

This thought process is rudimentary economics and can be found in Henry Hazlitt's book titled, "Economics in one Lesson".

Why the media HATES Ron Paul.

By Dan Beaulieu

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:  

Understanding Ron Paul

Why The Media Hates Ron Paul

I find it amusing the similarities between Obama’s “Change” platform that won him the presidency versus Ron Paul’s noninterventionist ideology, and how they garner very different responses. The popular “Anti-War” platform, not dissimilar to George Bush Jr.’s winning platform in 2000, has been used for years. Presidential candidates often speak of a humble foreign policy and peaceful trade; ralling the people together on the notion of peace and ride the waves of praise all the way into the White House. This could only lead one to the conclusion: the people of the Unites States are tired of war and want real change.

I’ll never forget the images from the 2008 election during Obama’s acceptance speech of so many people crying and hugging, rejoicing in the prospect of “Change”. The idea of peace and trade even won Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", which has only become controversy since his election as our military presence has grown exponentially and our image around the world only desecrated. Notwithstanding, the American people obviously trusted that Obama would bring home the troops.

So curious is the distinct contrast in people’s reaction to these nearly identical messages, but why? Both of these men in suits champion a noble and humane ideology. However, when Dr. Ron Paul mentions the notion of “minding our own business”, a notion well understood by children on the playground, or “staying out of other countries affairs” he is dismissed as the crazy isolationist loon or Uncle Ronny.

Let’s establish now that he’s certainly not being discredited as Ron the“Crazy Uncle” due to his philosophy on economics, as it’s general knowledge that he predicted the housing bubble collapse of 2008 way back in 2001 (see video) and has been warning us of a full economic collapse since the 1980’s (see video) due to quantitative easing and inflation, not to mention he’s the only candidate with a strategy to actually fix the economy. Ron Paul has announced a plan to cut the deficit by $1 trillion dollars immediately, he understand the severity of the issues.

So one must ask the question, why exactly is he being discriminated with such a similar stance on war to Obama and Bush Jr.? His superior economic understanding trumps that of ANY president we've had in probably the last century. Is there a dynamic that we are missing? I understand that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Part of this dynamic is that Dr. Paul isn’t just another “man in a suit”. Unlike the other nominees, when he speaks he speaks with substance, not simply campaign winning rhetoric and canned responses. As previously stated by Doug Wead, Ron Paul’s campaign advisor, Ron doesn’t rehearse responses, that are specifically designed to appeal to you, with coaches behind the scenes. He constructs his answers right there, in the hot seat, and in front of millions of people. Furthermore, unlike George Bush Jr. and Barrak Obama, Ron Paul’s rock solid and principled voting record that spans 30 years suggests that he would actually follow through and produce real, moral and logical transformations that would shake the establishment. Changes that the establishment simply will not have. But then, what exactly is the establishment and how does it alter the general public opinion? This is the other part of the dynamic.

The establishment is the federal government, large corporations, the military and “The Big 6”. To quote on the subject, “The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.” What that actually means is that they are able to depict events, by a series of tiny manipulations or misrepresentations, to best suit their interests.

How this relates to “Crazy Uncle” Ron is very simple, let’s take General Electric for example. They own many things including mainstream news outlets like NBC, MSNBC, USA , CNBC, etc, etc. They produce many electronic devices such as explosion detection systems for the Military and aviation systems for the Navy. General Electric (NBC) also makes many of the engines for the Military fighters, helicopters and transports. But what they make the most money from is weapons and ammunition. You can’t have munitions sales without a war (preferably perpetual war) and you simply can’t have a war with Ron Paul as president.* 

So even in championing the same anti-war message, Ron Paul, through many small manipulations and misrepresentations in data, becomes the “Crazy Uncle” whereas the obvious lapdog Obama becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner for speaking essentially the same message, the difference was intent. Ron Paul intends to end these wars, Obama never intended to. (Which may be why he gets more donations from the Military troops than all of the GOP candidates combined.)

Break the paradigm, seek alternative press and support Ron Paul in 2012.

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

*Ron Paul’s stance on war is that you don’t go to into needless wars.  If war is necessary, however, you don’t go without a declaration and congressional approval. The declaration must also include the definition of the enemy so the war can actually be won unlike the war on terror, you can never win a war on an inanimate object. Once that’s established you get your troops in, you win and you come home. No nation building and No endless wars.

(thank's to

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Ron Paul Exposed

This video exposes the truth about Ron Paul

Herman Cain Exposed: Economically Incompetent

By Dan Beaulieu

I have seen several headlines in the recent past that Herman Cain’s economic knowledge is just what we need to get our economy running again; the “Cain-train” as some call it. Serving as ex-Federal Reserve chairman of the Kansas City branch from 1992 until 1996, why wouldn’t American’s trust his economic prowess? To be honest, until I scrutinized his 9-9-9 plan and read into his economic history, I bought into the “honest businessman” image. I encourage readers to drop all superficialities and examine each candidate’s economic histories as America cannot afford any more mistakes.

I have already gone over Herman Cain’s faulty 9-9-9 plan in depth in a previous article, so I urge readers wanting to know more, to go read it. That said, I will address the comments that Cain has made in this video.
"the sales tax in the state of Florida or any other state - I'm that’s not addressing that, that’s going to be there whether we have the old system or the new system so, let’s not muddy the waters with that, that’s a totally different situation" –  Herman Cain
This was a play common of most politicians, tiptoeing around the question to save face, then quickly following it up with an irrelevant point. The concern that msNBC’s host Chuck Todd inquired about was that “sticker shock” would affect consumerism negatively which could hurt the economy further. In Cain’s response he stated that “the [state sales tax] is going to be there whether we have the old system or the new system.” Unfortunately, the presence of the state tax alone was NOT the concern, the idea of a national tax on TOP of the state tax was the concern. Cain knew this.
The truth about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is that mathematically it will not work, it would kill the middle class.  However, the shortcomings of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan should be expected once one takes into consideration who wrote the plan, Art Laffer, the man who not only gave the economy a clean bill of health just before the collapse, but laughed at Peter Schiff who was accurately predicting catastrophe.
His Failure to Foresee the Housing Market Collapse
On August 17th 2005 Herman Cain not only gave the economy a clean bill of health but he followed it up by insulting those who were predicting catastrophe:
"coverage of the bush economy reads like a collection of democratic party press releases, calling a strong economy everything from struggling to volatile or dicey... that kind of ignorance make homeowners fear that their most expensive possession could turn worthless overnight. That won't happen."
Herman Cain’s predictions couldn’t have been more wrong. The housing bubble collapsed as all bubbles must and countless American‘s went into foreclosure. When Mr. Todd asked Cain what signals he missed in 2005 were Cain scapegoated his lack of economic foresight. He claimed that at the time he didn’t know just how much Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae distorted the housing market.  I am sure many listeners hastily accepted this fantasy, although the twist should’ve been obvious.
Freddie and Fanny couldn’t distort the housing market, only the fed can do that by lowering interest rates which creates bubbles. Bubbles form when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates below the natural levels of a market, it influences expansion of investments well beyond sustainable levels. This distorts the signals that business uses to assess risk. These distortions then lead businesses (Freddie and Fannie) to believe that consumers have the savings to back up their investments. However, artificially low (below market) interest rates don’t generate new wealth to make good on investments. So when the bubble pops these fallacies are realized in lost investments.
Looking back on Herman Cain’s past position as a Federal Reserve chairman surely he understood this. I imagine it’s safe to assume that he has a thorough understanding of how the Fed works. Having said that, one can only draw the conclusion that Mr. Cain purposely put the blame on Freddie and Fannie in order to protect his interest with the Fed.  I go over why the Federal Reserve is problematic and why Herman Cain’s involvement in  the Fed should concern all of us in a previous article.
This wasn’t his only economic failure, on September 1st of 2008 Cain wrote:
“The supposed failure of bush's economic policies has been a constant theme of the democrats since the 2006 elections, when the democrats regained control of the house and senate by convincing enough of the voters that the sky was falling, and that the war in Iraq could not be won. Based on all of their convention speeches, they plan to continue those themes right through Election Day on November 4th
Herman Cain’s incompetency here was made obvious within 15 days of that writing. His simple response when questioned about this statement is that as president he will have people working under him who will understand the economy for him, this person is Art Laffer who is equally incompetent. Herman's misguidance continued with the epic TARP bailouts which lead to the devaluation of our dollar. In our country’s state of economic crisis; in the world’s state of economic crisis, can we really prepared to invite more bad economic policy by electing a man who’s economically incompetent? 
Bad economic policy got us into this mess and the only person who can get us out of this mess, is a person who fully understands economics, bubbles and how the collapse occurred. Herman Cain made clear he was not that man. By now I am sure you have syllogistically figured out who I am referring to; Ron Paul warned of the Housing Market collapse in 2001.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Herman Cain Exposed: The Federal Reserve Chairman

By Dan Beaulieu

As most of us already know, the Federal Reserve [Fed] came under expansive scrutiny in 2008 after the housing bubble burst and reaped havoc on our dollar. What most people don’t know is why the Federal Reserve came under fire. The absence of that knowledge creates a lack of conviction and rectifying our economic problems can only occur when both knowledge and conviction are achieved. The majority of Americans perceive our Federal Reserve as necessary and integral to our economy, as air is to our respiratory system. Most people don’t understand the immoral inner workings of the Fed nor do they understand the unconstitutionality of it. People are often surprised when they learn that the fed is privately owned.

Ex-federal reserve chairman and now presidential candidate Herman Cain has repeatedly defended the Federal Reserve claiming an audit would be “counterproductive”. He also recently announced that he admired Alan Greenspan, the man who created the giant bubble that led to our current crisis. Given the understanding that Herman Cain must certainly have about the Fed, being that he was a Federal Reserve Chairman, his defense is inexcusable, irresponsible and immoral to the wellbeing of the American people.

In this document, I will take you over the failures of fiat money, the corruption it breeds and the negative effect it has on our savings. This document is for those who want to understand the Fed more deeply, I offer a moderate history of the Fed to hopefully elucidate the subject and display why Herman Cain would be a continuation of bad economic policy and immorality against the American people.

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

History of Fiat Currency

In 1775 the Continental Congress began issuance of a paper currency called the Continental in preparation of the war with Great Britain. Since the notion of taxation was highly ridiculed and the war costs were so high, they began printing Bills of Credit (short term public loans to the government) in order to fund the war.

This proved problematic as by 1776, due to inflation (diluting the money supply), the Bills of Credit depreciated to 66% of initial value. In an attempt to combat the depreciation the states made paper currencies legal tender for all purchases and debts, enacted price controls and continued to print more money. In 1778 state and federal directed Procurement Officers (soldiers) to seize and pillage the people giving certificates of debt in return, which also quickly diminished in value. By 1780, hyperinflation led Congress to the conclusion that further printing was futile; the money supply had been diluted to just 1% of its original value in 6 years.

The overall failure of the paper Continental led our founders to authoring Article 1 Section 10 of our Constitution, which declared that only gold and silver were to be legal tender. This law was designed to protect us from the immorality of a devaluating currency; the theft of wealth at the behest of others.

The Federal Reserve Act

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913

On December 23 of 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve Act was instated, which, at the peril of our Constitution, was granted legal authority to issue Federal Reserve notes. This system would be built around the ideology of macroeconomics, (later labeled Keynesian economics post 1936). Initially, as a safeguard, the dollar was fixed on the value of gold and was to be redeemable in gold at a rate of $20.67 per ounce. This assured low inflation and placed natural market restrictions on the Fed by allowing the market to influence the economy (although notably hindered by intervention). 

During that time the Federal Reserve comptroller assured the people that it was mathematically impossible to have economic recessions, claiming that this form of economic planning was superiorly more sophisticated; perfect. However according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, this notion was quickly invalidated as between 1918 and 1919 we experienced our first bubble and recession.


Bubbles form when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates below the natural levels of a market, it influences expansion of investments well beyond sustainable levels. This distorts the signals that business uses to assess risk. These distortions then lead businesses to believe that consumers have the savings to back up their investments. However, artificially low (below market) interest rates don’t generate new wealth to make good on investments. So when the bubble pops these fallacies are realized in lost investments.

The bubbles and economic recessions continued, just as they had with every other central bank. Bubbles occurred in 1918 to 1919, 1920 to 1921, 1923 to 1924, 1926 to 1927, and 1929 to 1933. As you might be aware, 1933 was the year that President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive order 6102 which not only restricted Americans from owning gold but ordered the seizure of gold. The gold fixed value of the dollar was then immediately changed from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. The Bubbles continued, 1937 to 1938, 1945, 1948 to 1949, 1953 to 1954, 1960 to 1961, and 1969 to 1970. Then things changed with a new Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

When Arthur Burns was appointed Chairman of the Fed (1970-78), he pushed for more secrecy by ending minutes keeping during meetings, allowing for concealment in meetings. He also made arguments for elasticity in our dollar by removing the “restriction” of the gold standard. On August 15, 1971 he got his wish.

We went off the gold standard and introduced ultimate elasticity to the Fed. This afforded them the ability to control the value of the dollar at their whim. This allso allowed the fed to interject the business cycle to make economic booms last longer, which in turn allowed the recessions last longer. The presence of real market restricts the boom from perpetuity, that is, every period of economic euphoria must be respected by an equal period of economic misery.

The recessions from 1918 to 1970 were relatively short and went fairly unnoticed due to the dollars fixed value. Once elasticity was granted and was perverted over time by intervention through inflation and low interest rates, the severity of the recessions were much more notable. Post gold fixed bubbles include 1973 to 1975, 1980, 1981 to 1982, 1990 to 1991 and 2000 to 2007, which brings us to our current crises.

The Great Bubble

The great bubble was largely attributed to the bad policies of Alan Greenspan (Herman Cain’s hero) who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 until 2006. Greenspan intervened in the recession that should’ve followed the dot-com bubble. Instead of accepting the natural recession that should have occurred in 2001, the Fed began expanding the Housing Market. This didn’t negate the previous bubble; it merely stalled it by creating a bigger bubble. The Fed arrogantly continued its efforts to stop recession through low interest rates and actual interest rates fell below historical averages. At that point the Fed had abandoned all monetary rules in attempts to prop the market.

Alan Greenspan slashed the federal fund targets from 6.5% in January of 2001 all the way down to 1% by June 2003. He fixed the rates at an artificial low of 1% for a full year, which encouraged more bad investments and caused a massive expansion of the bubble. Then, by June of 2006, Greenspan had raised it back to 5.25%, a move that popped the bubble and unleashed the havoc of three overdue recessions.

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Surly a man of Alan Greenspan’s intelligence saw what was happening as he undoubtedly understands basic economics and the business cycle. Bearing that leads to the question, what motive would Greenspan have for knowingly doing this? All one has to do is look to who gets the money, and the answer is obvious. Alan Greenspan was protecting the fed’s banking, big business and political interest by skirting the financial burden on the people, essentially socializing loss.

“Inflation is the most evasive and aggressive form of taxation it transfers wealth from the middle class to the privileged rich”. – Ron Paul


The Federal Reserve is falsely known as a politically neutral part of our government. This cannot be further from the truth on either count. As a private institution the Fed succumbs to the interest of its controllers and shareholders. The Federal Reserve, being the most secret institution in our country, can give undisclosed money to corporations and influence politics by adjusting (loosening) rates during elections. An example of this, which can be found in Ron Paul’s best-selling book “End The Fed”, is Arthur Burns (Fed Chairman 1970-78) attempt at seducing President Carter in 1976.

It is well documented that Arthur Burns, in an attempt to be reappointed, cut discount rates and accelerated money growth to alter the perception of the economy. He told Carter that reappointment would make him out to be a high minded statesman and suggested that if reappointed he (Arthur Burns) would stop criticizing everything near and dear to him (Carter). He failed and his intervention in the market brought on the worst bout of price inflation in a century and caused the democrats to lose the office to Regan.

People like this are the masters of our economy?

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws"
-Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (Rothschild family is the largest Fed shareholder)

The Audit

"Some people, I believe, think there is some sort of smoking gun or some sort of secrecy that the public doesn't know that goes on behind those closed doors and the reason why that is not one of my big issues is, I don't think they are gonna find anything. I know that the internal controls of the Federal Reserve are as tight as a drum, that’s what I learned serving on the Federal Reserve board for 5 years " – Herman Cain Minneapolis, MN on June 18th, 2011

Although they do have regular audits, the auditors are extremely limited in what they can actually audit which makes them irrelevant altogether. Contrary to Herman Cain’s claim that calling the Fed will provide all the answers, the reality is that all past requests for information have always been met with arrogance from Fed chairmen, turning them down, as if the requests were outrageous.

In 2009 Ron Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R.1207), which requested a full audit of the Federal Reserve, the first in its 100 year history. It gained wide attention and support but what passed was Senator Bernard Sanders lite version titled Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (s.604), which demanded a partial audit, and here are their findings. (

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows:

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)

Well Mr. Cain did they find anything? Was it counterproductive? How could you, bearing this knowledge, say the fed is not an issue? Mr. Cain, millions of dollars of this money, at our expense, went to the Libyan government and to Mohammar Quadaffi yet you still support the Fed?  

This secret stimulus inflates our dollar and thus is a tax on the people; our money went to these thieves by way of devaluation of our savings.

Ben Bernanke & Quantitative Easing:

Ben Bernanke is the current chairman of the Fed. He continues with the bad practices that Greenspan used. He continues the inflation of our currency and devaluation of the dollar, a direct tax on the people’s savings and earnings. Ben Bernanke believes that he can “fix” our current economic crisis by printing money; stimulus through quantitative easing. Essentially treating the illness with what caused it in the first place.

Quantitative Easing (QE) is another form of stimulus, an injection of money into our supply. QE happens as a result of artificially low interest rates. To better understand this process I urge you to watch this film QE Explained. This is Ben Bernanke’s secret (and only) weapon, and its proliferating the problem.

Private Counterfiters:
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."  The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation with shares. Those shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within each of the twelve Fed Bank's district. The shareholders get to elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank, they also elect the president. I urge you to look over which banks got bailed out and contrast them to the list below. Corporate interests at its finest.

The shareholders are kept mostly confidential, however author Eustace Mullins exposed some of the members in his bombshell book titled “Secrets of the Federal Reserve  Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York to name a few.

The Fed is guilty of secretly counterfeiting money and creating credit for private, corporate and political interest.


Herman Cain has been asked time and time again if he believes the Federal Reserve should be scrutinized or even audited and his answer is always a resounding “no”. During the Bloomberg debate Ron Paul asked Mr. Cain, if he still thinks the Fed shouldn’t be audited.

Herman Cain’s response:

“First of all you have misquoted me, I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from so you gotta be careful of the stuff you find on the internet because that’s just not something that I have said. Secondly, when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s we didn’t do any of the things that this Federal Reserve is doing I don’t agree with the actions of this Federal Reserve. I don’t agree with the actions that have been undertaken by ben Bernanke. We didn’t have a $14 trillion dollar debt to prop up some of the actions they are taking and I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited.”

A blatant, provable lie:

He claimed that it would be “counterproductive” to do so, echoing Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s words verbatim. How can he say this when taking into considerations immoralities of inflation, stimulus, bailouts, political intervention and war funding? How can he endorse the secret nature of the Fed, while claiming to be a freedom loving American? It certainly cannot be because he is ignorant of the facts.

Mr. Cain also claimed that the fed wasn’t doing “the things that they are now” when he was Director of the Kansas City branch from 1992 to 1996, which is another blatant lie. Alan Greenspan was chairman from 1987 until 2006; his practices have always been the same. All of his predecessors’ practices were the same and his successors practices are the same. It’s the flawed Keynesian system that the Federal Reserve was founded on.

Regarding the comment about the $14 trillion in debt, that “we didn’t have” while he was Director. This was a direct result of the policies that Herman Cain endorsed, an accumulation of things including the tarp bailouts. Mr. Cain, if time and time again the government has been wrong in the allocation of our capital (nasdaq, housing, stimulus), then how can we trust them to be right in the future? How can we trust you?

The flaws of the Fed, the great depression and the current crisis can be proven syllogistically and down to central economic planning, the departure from the gold standard and Keynesian economics. The benefits of an elastic fiat currency allow for rich men to prop up their interests (often overseas) at the expense of the American people. It’s a morally corrupt system that claims ethical high ground, this moral high ground drives us into socialism.

It’s the American people’s job to stop encouraging the Fed’s existence by demanding benefits from congressmen that can only be produced by printing fiat money. We are neglecting our future and our children’s future and selling it out for the short term benefits of now. We encourage the Fed by supporting wars which could only be funded with an elastic money supply.

Often people make the reference that we should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. This is an ignorant notion as it cannot apply to a private institute with private interests. If the baby is the American Peoples interest, the baby has long since left the bathwater.


A major resource was my copy of Ron Paul's book End The Fed

Many more included through the document.

Herman Cain Exposed: Lied to America

Lied to America Once

Lied to America Twice

He also said he didn't call speculators ignorant:
“Coverage of the Bush economy reads like a collection of Democratic Party press releases, calling a strong economy everything from struggling to volatile or dicey. That kind of ignorance makes homeowners fear that their most expensive possession could turn worthless overnight. That won’t happen.” - herman cain
Anyone who would still vote for this man has no moral compass and obviously have no problem inviting more deceptive politicians into their lives.

Don't make excuses for him, he lied.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Herman Cain Exposed: Immigration & Border Control

By Dan Beaulieu

Herman Cain’s immigration plan involves building a colossal wall well over 700 miles long and 20 feet tall envisioned in the same vein as the Great Wall of China.(link) He completes his vision by incorporating an electrified section at the top of the wall and an alligator moat on the other side.(link) Estimated costs would project at over $50 billion (link) His supporters embrace this idea, but do they really take into consideration what the repercussions could be? Furthermore, do we honestly believe that this expensive and immoral act would actually end illegal immigration?

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment and jump ahead into a future where Herman Cain is president and he has successfully built the magnificent 1,000 mile electrified wall depicted in his grand vision for America. Obviously, one cannot tell the future, but I will offer my thoughts on a post wall future, please keep in mind this is mostly theoretical. Having said that, one cannot deny at least some validity of my forecast as I base them in logic and reality.

How would Herman Cain’s wall affect our relations with the Mexican people or all of Latin America for that matter?


Mexico currently exports between $160 and $200 billion dollars worth of product to America each year (link). Mexico imports about $130 to $180 billion dollars of product from America each year (link) for a combined total of well over $300 billion in trade per year. This is a considerable amount of revenue that directly translates into jobs and wealth for a good number of Americans. Herman Cain’s wall would be a direct hit to our national economy and a devastating blow to southern US ports such as Houston, Texas which conducts about $17 billion in business with Mexico each year. (link

As Herman Cain’s Great Wall of America casts its shadow over Mexico it waves a blatant tribute to our rejection of her people. Deep resentment of us would naturally arise from the Mexican people. A growing bitterness that, for some, would undoubtedly evolve into hatred. One could be certain that groups of Mexicans would begin to rally for boycotts of American imports and exports, even at their own economic hazard. Those groups would expand.

Yes, wealthy men would prevail and trade would continue but only at a noted deficiency. Certain Mexican companies, especially smaller ones (who rely greatly on local business), would choose to discontinue exports to America as a means to end the boycotts, and the principle could trend.

Imagine if just 10% of companies stopped trading with us on account of Herman Cain’s wall. In this scenario, conservatively speaking, around $30 billion would be lost annually. This directly renders into tens of thousands of jobs lost alone. Now imagine an escalation of resentment on both sides pushing that number to 50%? What would that do to our Nation? To Texas?

Again this is all theoretical, yet plausible.

Travel & Threat

The resentment from the Mexican people, who are now confined to poverty, drug violence and a weakening economy, would be most certain.

Of course American tourists would still safely travel to major cities. It might be wise to stay near the attractions as even in the most tourist friendly areas would be interleaved with some dissent. Seeing wealthy Americans who travel to spend their surplus money; perhaps more in their brief visit than most Mexican families earn in a year. The same Americans who’s detest for the Mexican people is so great that they constructed a monstrous wall to keep them out. Americans would almost certainly meet with violent differ in other parts of Mexico.

During the lengthy construction of such a wall, workers could expect some insurgency from a variety of affected groups ranging from local guerrillas to drug trafficking gangs who see their window for profit closing.
Would it be too difficult to imagine a Mexican extremist? A person so outraged with our actions that they come here by plane and attack our people?

This could become more commonplace than you think. The War on Terror marches on.


Back to reality.

Throughout time mankind has overcome just about every obstacle that has impeded his ambition. The Great Wall of America would be an incentive for such innovation. Although, undoubtedly, there would be a slight fall in the numbers of illegal immigrants this method would ultimately fall short of its intended duty. Unless the wall is made from magic - man will find a way past.

Mexican people will show up in record numbers to vote against Herman Cain.


America was founded on immigrants, our ideas and philosophies were forged through the merging of different cultures. In fact, most of our ancestors immigrated here at one point in time. Our statue of liberty is a symbol of freedom and liberty, not just for the American people, but for all people through the world. The current system, Herman Cain included, has waged war on this philosophy as the illegal immigrant battle has become a racist act of isolationism in its truest form.

What we aren’t fully grasping is the current living conditions that the Mexican people struggle through. Their government either cannot or will not control the drugs and guns, their economy is in shambles and their children are at risk of everything from disease to human trafficking. For the people of Mexico, a better life urgently awaits them in America, yet we demonize them for wanting better for their families and having what we have.

The common argument to this is, don’t come here illegally then; if you want to come here do it on our terms.

I would agree in principle, however, it’s more complicated than that. Currently, the wait time to gain citizenship is over 5 years (link), and that’s if you’re granted citizenship at all. Furthermore, without an attorney it’s highly unlikely to attain citizenship period, which adds a hefty toll to that avenue. So rather than attempting the convoluted and unlikely road to legal citizenship. The preferable choice, as we have made it, is to come here illegally, besides the punishment for doing so is considerably lax.  

The unfortunate truth is that this wall wouldn’t be effective at stopping the problem and could potentially cause serious problems with our relations to Mexico and to our already damaged economy. However, there is a much simpler solution to the illegal immigrant problem.

Remove the many attractive incentives that tempt illegal immigrants to come here such as cheap housing, welfare, food stamps, free medical care, tuition, birth-right citizenship, jobs and various other programs, as Ron Paul has suggested. Then if we made the pathway to becoming a legal resident easier, and they were held to the same requirements as we are, the overall immigrant flow would slow down all-together. This method is not only practical but it’s a moral approach as well. It would yield far superior results and be less costly for our nation than Herman Cain’s Great Wall of America solution.

Herman Cain Exposed: The 9-9-9 Plan

By Dan Beaulieu
(updated 10/14/2011)

 Herman Cain’s movement towards a flat tax is his widely coveted 9-9-9 plan which looks very attractive from a distance. However, upon further scrutiny one finds that this system may be much worse than the current flawed system.

For those of you unfamiliar with Herman Cain’s plan it’s a 9% business flat tax, 9% personal income tax and 9% national sales tax. At a glance, 9% is a very attractive number for anyone in the middle class with incremental tax rates ranging from 15% to 35%. What isn’t obvious is that Cain’s plan would be achieved by eliminating most deductions. With the current tax code deductions, a tax rate of 28% could drop to about 17%. That said, keep in mind the National Sales Tax at 9% is a new tax added on top, so this is really just shuffling of numbers.

The 9% business flat tax creates a perverse loophole incentive by lowering the taxation on capital gains and dividends to 0%. This naturally encourages businessmen to pay out 100% of their income as dividends or hide it by “reinvesting” it into the business rather than pay the 9%. So while the people pay both a state and federal tax (up to 33%), the businesses get away with paying no tax. Another thing to take into consideration is that smaller businesses wouldn't be able to utilize this 0% income tax to their advantage because often their only shareholder would be themselves. I find it hard to believe a businessman of Herman Cain's stature could mistakenly overlook a loophole like this.

Before continuing with the final portion of the 9-9-9 plan I’d like to take a moment to explain the challenge with transitioning into the 9-9-9 plan. With our current tax system our national revenue last year was about $2.2 trillion, leaving a national deficit of $1.7. Adjusted to the 9-9-9 plan the total national revenue would be $1.7 trillion, this inflates our deficit to $2.2 trillion. (source) Mr. Cain has not presented a spending proposal that would allow for our current boated government to function on $1.7 trillion dollars, nor has he detailed which, if any, cuts he’d make to make his plan plausible. 

Now for the real evil of the 9-9-9 plan; the national sales tax. Since Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is can’t be immediately instituted due to the sheer size of our government. Herman Cain has created a series of phases, that have, in my opinion a low probability of success. Initially the 9-9-9 plan would be more like a 9-9-25 (or so) plan. So initially we would need to begin with a National Sales Tax of 22-30% to fund our government. Which would undoubtedly have detrimental effects on our economy, as the author of the following scenario suggests.

Generally, when you purchase a final, refined good, you are paying for the raw materials that went into processing it. So let’s use a hypothetical example and compare current tax law with Cain’s 9 / 9 / 9 plan.

Under current law: As a manufacturer, you go to purchase raw materials. Suppose your Widget needs a stack of lumber that costs $1000. Because of state sales tax, that lumber costs, on average, $1070. That cost is built into the end price of the Widget.

Now, you manufacture these widgets. To make up for the expense of the Widget, and to ensure you’re making money to pay for labor, transportation, inspection, regulation, etc. and profit, your final product costs $2000, and one of your customers will pay $2140 it. Your customer has to get the Widgets to market, and charges $3000, or $3210 with final state tax.

Under the Cain 9% plan: Now the stack of lumber comes with a 16% tax on it (state’s 7% plus 9% for Federal), which makes the lumber cost $1160 for raw materials, $2320 for the manufacturer, and $3480. Notice a few things here–

A) The profit margin for the manufacturer has decreased. In order to make up for this, his end product needs to be more expensive. So let’s call his end price to market is $2410 to make up, just in revenue lost from paying the extra tax on raw materials. Notice this now a 20.5% increase in price with built in taxation– not 16% as figured from the state + the Cain 9%).
B) The end distributor for customers now also has to make up for that increase in price, so let’s put that new term at $3750 for recouping what was lost in tax before, so the end price is now 25% higher. If this distributor is pushing items out to stores for end-sales, we’re looking at a 30% increase in prices from a 9% increase due to a NST.” – The Autopsy

In that scenario the author gives Mr. Cain the benefit of the doubt, that is, instead of using a more realistic 23% for his math he uses a 9%. One only needs to extrapolate those numbers to understand what turmoil our country would be in under those circumstances. I agree with the author, as he goes on to conclude, that both businesses and the middle class would suffer greatly from this while the rich would gain.


The Detroit Free Press revealed today that Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was written by Art Laffer. Laffer is the same man in this video who laughed at Peter Schiff when Schiff was correctly predicting economic collapse. An impossible plan written by and incompetent man.

Update thanks to

Peter Schiff's take on the 9-9-9 plan:


Saturday, October 8, 2011

Herman Cain Exposed: The Patriot Act

By Dan Beaulieu

Herman Cain said recently in an interview with The Atlantic (link) that he agrees with 90% of The Patriot Act, which is arguably the most detrimental attack on our civil liberties since our emancipation from the British in 1776. When asked what the 10% he disagreed with was, he only gave a vague dismissive response, which indicates that he probably hasn’t read it (as most people haven’t) but wanted to retain for himself an exit strategy if ever criticized on the issue.

Though most Americans arbitrarily support the Patriot Act in respect to how “9/11 changed our way of life”, few are aware that the Patriot Act was authored long before that date. This negates that notion altogether and confirms that 9/11 was craftily used as a convenient device to instate the legislation.

Upon reading the 1,472* page bill, one can see why the authors made sure it was not available to the eyes of our congressmen before it was voted on. The ill-titled “Patriot” Act represents anything but patriotism, and in fact impedes on virtually all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Due to the fact that most Americans are oblivious to the contents of the Patriot Act, I will briefly go over a few bullet points; however I will spare you lengthy detail to abstain the scope of this document.

·         Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Violates Amendment IV

·         Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. Violates Amendment VI

·         Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity. Violates Amendment I

·         Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. Violates Amendment VI

  -        Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. Violates Amendment I

·         Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys. Violates Amendment VI

·         The enemy redefined: The patriot act also broadens the definition of "terrorist" to anyone who opposes a federal government program or policy. This gives them probable cause for 70% of Americans conservatively.

By supporting the Patriot Act, Herman Cain endorses the idea of exchanging security for our basic freedoms, a model Benjamin Franklin strongly advised against. Americans rational idealizes that if you are guilty of no crimes than you’ve got nothing to hide, so it’s worth it. This just isn’t the case, as the great Thomas Paine once said, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

These wise words resonate today in the case of a 10th grader wrongfully arrested and held for 2 months without council, due process or visitation from his mother. (video) He was innocent but the Patriot Act refused him the right of due process. These trespasses on our civil liberties will only get worse and happen more frequently as time goes by, as is the predictable evolutionary process.

People often try to dismiss these criticisms as libertarian alarmist propaganda, though I combat that ideology with simple logic. Once our Constitutional rights have been taken away from even just one single American, no matter how bad they are, then we have undoubtedly lost our way.  As I outlined in an article I wrote entitled “The American Way Abandoned” (link) I expressed the importance of adhering to our founding fathers principles, which concludes that if we do not, we do so at our own peril.

In conclusion:

I find is sad that Herman Cain believes that we need to give up our fundamental liberties in exchange for security. Especially when the odds of being struck by lighting defeat the odds of dying in a terrorist attack (link). As human beings we are exposed to a myriad of risks at every crossroads from operating a piece of machinery to crossing the street. We shouldn't waiver our freedoms in fear as these risks will always exist regardless of any legislation. Only in observing simple precautions can we can reduce the risk of fatality without sacrificing our fundamental liberties. Simple logic persist that when driving, wear a seatbelt, when operating machinery, use safety measures and to combat terrorism stop foreign occupation. It’s a fact that oppression causes revolt, often in the form of terrorism.

*Depending on the source the amount of pages in the patriot act is between 342 and 2,500. Dr. Twight mentioned in an interview that she had read all 1,472 pages. Personally I don't claim to be the expert on every page, however I have read enough to ascertain its completely unconstitutional.


GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul Win's Values Voter Summit Straw Poll in in DC

Ron Paul won yet another straw poll which, once again, serves to solidify his place in the lead. Since we all know the mainstream media won't report this victory as their media darling puppets didn't win, I believe it's up to the grassroots to do their jobs for them.

Here's the video of Ron's Peach at the Values Voter Summit Straw Poll.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Black This Out! 10/19 (event)

By Dan Beaulieu

This is the big one everyone. This isn't about Ron Paul, it's about "We The People" sending a message to the media and the establishment. A vital part of our peaceful revolution is showing our strength and independence from the media vice. You see, we are at a precipice; a fork in the road. It's time to decide our fate. Will the Orwellian nightmare be realized or will we reinvigorate the spirit of our founding fathers?

This is up to you and I.

If you believe in the revolution then commit yourself wholeheartedly to this event for the next several days, dedicate your spare time to informing people about the event and what it stands for. Rally support to the banner of freedom. Every day post this on your facebook, in forums, in comments to articles, on you tube, on twitter and on your blog. Then to your friends, family and community in person. Get everyone you can to pledge. When the time comes DONATE, I know some of us are broke, but don't dismiss this one. Find a way...

(detailed information)

Ron Paul is the People, he is our symbol of freedom.

Dear Occupy Wall Street Protesters,

 By Dan Beaulieu

I understand that your crowd consists of a very diverse range of upset people which, for the most part, I endorse as its nourishing for the American spirit. That said, I also believe that there are quite a bit of clueless people out there who are touting potentially dangerous ideas. I will address them in order; this list may be amended later.
  1. Wealth Redistribution
  2. Anti-Capitalism
  3. Obama Supporters

Wealth Redistribution comes from the ideology that all rich people became rich at the expense of the poor using malevolent devices. This simply is not true and displays envy.

I’d like to illustrate this by briefly explaining how an acquaintance of mine became very wealthy. He was pushed into working as a means to take care of his ailing father at the age of 15. Working long hours as a landscaper he began to save money, he expanded. Over time his success led him to try something else, he bought a pizzeria. His pizzeria did well which allowed him to quit landscaping, in fact he did so well he started more pizzerias around town. Over time he accumulated a whole chain of pizzerias. After years in the business he sold his company becoming a millionaire. He then started several other businesses, some were successful and some were not. When the housing bubble burst he had a fleeting opportunity to either lose money or to make a great deal of money. He gambled and bought as many houses as he could afford, 100 around his home town of Orlando. This is the American dream, the right to pursue prosperity and the right to take your own chances. This man now has over $100,000,000 because he took a chance and it paid off.

Who did he hurt? What devices did he use besides the honest sweat of his brow? Yet the ideology of the wealth redistributionist insists that his hard earned money should be stolen from him and given to people who haven’t earned it in respects to being “fair”. This is the same envious and greedy concept that ushered in the income tax in 1913. It was intended for the richest people only but wound up applying to everyone. Soak the rich.

Wealth redistribution is a socialist philosophy. A socialist system looks out for the group at the expense of the individual.( In other words, violating an individual’s rights.) This works out as long as you’re not the individual. Instead, we should do as our founders intended and encourage personal liberty for every individual which will maximize freedom amongst the entire group.

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine

Anti- Capitalism (1) describes a wide variety of movements, ideas, and attitudes which oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists, in the strict sense of the word, are those who wish to completely replace capitalism with another system. Capitalism (2) is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.

Capitalism is basically the idea of producing goods for profit, which I find nothing wrong with in a free market society. Now in a society based on big business and the stock market, capitalism can take a corrupt and malicious turn. Though keep in mind that capitalism is not to blame, it’s merely the device used for personal or corporate gain.  In a free market this malicious element would be eliminated as free markets are at the mercy of competition and supply & demand, not phony and misleading investments.

Obama Supporters protesting at these rallies is a paradox in its truest form. It should be obvious with the damage he’s done to our economy through extreme deficit spending, immoral bailouts and out of control stimulus that he is not a friend to the American Way. You cannot dismiss these transgressions as Bush era inheritance, to do so irresponsible and contumacious. Obama has trespassed against American values over and over (3) and represents the very elite that Occupy Wall Street is rallying against. He’s a socialist and a phony American who dismisses our fundamental principles.

I support Occupy Wall Street but would like to clarify who our enemy is. To properly and morally redistribute wealth we need to institute laws that restrict large conglomerates from forming. These large conglomerates own our financial institutions, energy suppliers, weapons manufacturers, news outlets and lobbyists who only breed corruption in politics. This conflict of interests is what allows the super elite to take our money through fraudulent persuasion, misdirection and through fiercely cornering of targeted markets, which puts small business men out of work. We also need end our fiat currency, central economic planning and the privately owned Federal Reserve which is intimately involved in big business and politics.

Great protester inspiration:


(1.) Source Wiki
(2.) Source Wiki
(3.) Going to war with Libya without congressional approval, creating a super congress, assassinating an American who hadn't committed any crime that we know of, thus depriving him of due process.