America's supposed defender of democracy, the free press, is no where to be found when democracy has been toppled. Never mind that the United States is a republic, the media have been maddeningly derelict in their coverage of the current "financial crisis". Where are the questions about the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Reserve? Where are the questions about the constitutionality of corporate bailouts? How can American's allow what is defined as "necessary" by the President, Congress, and the Fed trump what is defined as mandatory by the Constitution?
These are not difficult questions, yet they have not been asked by the media. America's next best hope to stop this intrusion on their rights: the judicial branch. America must turn to its judges and lawyers to enforce the law if the press is unwilling to or unable to shine a light on the tyrannical deeds of Washington. If nothing is done to challenge these unlawful acts then I fear the worst is yet to come.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Constitution's Last Gasps
We must save our financial system has been the plea in Washington D.C. for the last week. Politicians and government officials feel "something" must be done or the country faces a meltdown of its financial system. That "something" is massive financial bailouts of banks and financial institutions in distress. The action is necessary, they claim, because the consequences of inaction are far worse. Yet, what are the consequences of inaction, and what of the legality of this action?
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to spend tax money. It is also pretty clear that this statute has been ignored since the inception of the Federal Reserve (1913). The summer of 2008 has been one of ever more unprecedented and unconstitutional action by the Federal Reserve, culminating in multi-billion dollar direct financial bailouts of America's largest financial institutions. Once the inflation, interest payments, bad debt write-offs, the Fed's low-interest auctions, and the government's ill-advised stimulus package are factored into the scheme, the American tax-payers stand to lose several trillion dollars and, more importantly, have already lost their system of government.
The backbone of the American form of government is its system of checks and balances. That system is broken. Congress played no role in the bailouts of AIG or Bear Sterns, yet several billion in tax-payer money have been used. The Federal Reserve's power to spend is unchecked and therefore its effect on Amerca's existence is unlimited. America's elected officials, all under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, have placed the importance of a centrally planned financial system over that of its system of government.
In both the short and long-terms Americans will be hurt more by inadequate, and indeed criminal, governance than by the predicted "meltdown" of its government's financial system. The tyranny waged by American politicians has never been greater than it is today. This financial "crisis" is primarily due to the central planning of Federal Reserve and has been exacerbated by government legislation that unreasonably favored homeownership for all Americans: it is the government and the Federal Reserve who set the stage for this debacle.
It is painfully obvious that America's elected officials are more concerned with the facade of action in an election year than their sworn duty. It is obvious that the free-market is free only when it behaves in a manner conducive to their re-election. It is obvious that the Constitution is no longer a restraint of power but a historical document to be mentioned only when discussing days of yore. It is obvious that America's days as a freedom-loving, law-abiding bastion of opportunity for all have come to an end.
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to spend tax money. It is also pretty clear that this statute has been ignored since the inception of the Federal Reserve (1913). The summer of 2008 has been one of ever more unprecedented and unconstitutional action by the Federal Reserve, culminating in multi-billion dollar direct financial bailouts of America's largest financial institutions. Once the inflation, interest payments, bad debt write-offs, the Fed's low-interest auctions, and the government's ill-advised stimulus package are factored into the scheme, the American tax-payers stand to lose several trillion dollars and, more importantly, have already lost their system of government.
The backbone of the American form of government is its system of checks and balances. That system is broken. Congress played no role in the bailouts of AIG or Bear Sterns, yet several billion in tax-payer money have been used. The Federal Reserve's power to spend is unchecked and therefore its effect on Amerca's existence is unlimited. America's elected officials, all under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, have placed the importance of a centrally planned financial system over that of its system of government.
In both the short and long-terms Americans will be hurt more by inadequate, and indeed criminal, governance than by the predicted "meltdown" of its government's financial system. The tyranny waged by American politicians has never been greater than it is today. This financial "crisis" is primarily due to the central planning of Federal Reserve and has been exacerbated by government legislation that unreasonably favored homeownership for all Americans: it is the government and the Federal Reserve who set the stage for this debacle.
It is painfully obvious that America's elected officials are more concerned with the facade of action in an election year than their sworn duty. It is obvious that the free-market is free only when it behaves in a manner conducive to their re-election. It is obvious that the Constitution is no longer a restraint of power but a historical document to be mentioned only when discussing days of yore. It is obvious that America's days as a freedom-loving, law-abiding bastion of opportunity for all have come to an end.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sarah Palin's Personal Business
Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant, and the Republican party is outraged at the media's "intrusive" coverage of Governor Palin's personal life. The Republican's contend that Bristol Palin, the governor's daughter, should be off-limits as a topic for the news media, but it is the Republicans who have invited the media scrutiny.
For decades the Republican party has courted "social conservatives" and have amended their party's platform to accomodate this group. Republicans feel that the degredation of the traditional American family is the source of many of the country's current ills. Republicans, lead by President Bush, have used tax-payer money to fund a wide range of conservative social issues such as abstinence education in public schools and a broad spectrum of "faith based initiatives."
It is then only logical to question whether Palin's family adheres to this social conservative viewpoint. Afterall, tax-payer money is being used to provide "values" education to Americans and no person should exemplify these values more than the person who will have the power to implement them.
One may argue that the candidate's families are innocent and should not be subject to the same intense media scutiny. This would be true only if the candidates did not make families a government issue. It is also true that all Americans, including the candidate's families, are hurt by the use of tax-payer money to fund subjective "values" or "moral" education.
One could argue that the candidate's family is hurt more by the policy than by the media scrutiny. No one, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to propose and implement such a policy (wholly inconsistent with at least the spirit of the Constitution I might add) and be free from criticism. Then, perhaps, candidates would think twice before attempting to legislate values.
For decades the Republican party has courted "social conservatives" and have amended their party's platform to accomodate this group. Republicans feel that the degredation of the traditional American family is the source of many of the country's current ills. Republicans, lead by President Bush, have used tax-payer money to fund a wide range of conservative social issues such as abstinence education in public schools and a broad spectrum of "faith based initiatives."
It is then only logical to question whether Palin's family adheres to this social conservative viewpoint. Afterall, tax-payer money is being used to provide "values" education to Americans and no person should exemplify these values more than the person who will have the power to implement them.
One may argue that the candidate's families are innocent and should not be subject to the same intense media scutiny. This would be true only if the candidates did not make families a government issue. It is also true that all Americans, including the candidate's families, are hurt by the use of tax-payer money to fund subjective "values" or "moral" education.
One could argue that the candidate's family is hurt more by the policy than by the media scrutiny. No one, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to propose and implement such a policy (wholly inconsistent with at least the spirit of the Constitution I might add) and be free from criticism. Then, perhaps, candidates would think twice before attempting to legislate values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)