GALTGULCH8

Members
  • Posts

    735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GALTGULCH8

  1. An article appeared at the FEE, Foundation For Economic Education website, written by Jeffrey A. Miron who is a senior lecturer at Harvard University Economics Department, entitled: Legalization of Opioids would drastically overdose deaths. Miron points out that prohibition of opioids restrictions on access force users to the streets where normal quality control does not operate. They may seek heroin but receive fentanyl or fentanyl laced heroin leading to their deaths from suppression of their respirations. I wonder about the motivation of those who are lacing Heroin with Fentanyl. Drug dealers generally want to keep their customers alive whereas fentanyl assures their demise. Given that last year over sixty thousand involuntary overdoses occurred, more than the number of Americans killed in all the years of the Vietnam War, I wonder if the fentanyl is being given by those associated with the Islamic State who seek death for Americans. The solution would indeed be to end prohibition of all drugs with legalization of opioids as a priority. I intend to develop a resolution to that effect to present at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society House of Delegates in the Spring. I would appreciate any sources of material which would help to make the case. galtgulch8
  2. It is instructive to watch as Trump acknowledges that he has supported politicians of both parties over the years on the grounds that he needed to do so in order to be able to carry on his business dealings with the help of those politicians. He does not apologize for this behavior and I am not aware that it is even considered to be crony capitalism or government intervention and is more consistent with a government of men and not of laws. He doesn't show any sign that what he does in rubbing elbows with politicians for his own benefit is evil or immoral or even just unfair. He justifies it as a necessity for a businessman to do business. He is unaware of the distinction between a capitalist, which he is not despite his wealth, and one who seeks to benefit using bribes rather than innovation and productivity. Another issue which is seemingly inexplicable is the idea that the power brokers within the Republican Party, the so-called Establishment, would rather that if Trump gets the nomination, that he actually lose the election to the Democrats. The thinking is that if he did win he would replace all of them from lucrative positions in the GOP hierarchy which would be devastating for them personally. That may be the case. It brings to mind what might become of anyone who poses a substantial threat to those who have been prospering as shareholders and owners of the Federal Reserve System. Some think that JFK's attempt to create a gold backed redeemable currency to compete with Federal Reserve Notes led to his assassination! The third issue on my mind is the idea that Kasich might win in Ohio and then continue to do well in subsequent contests as he expects. I don't know if the math is in his favor to get the 1237 rather prospect of succeeding on a multi ballot contest in the convention in Cleveland. I would rather that Gary Johnson win but I am not yet sure whether the LP has chosen their nominee yet. Last time Johnson did get over one million votes in the presidential election of 2012. Does anyone here think that the president might declare a bank holiday and then confiscate money from deposits to pay down the national debt or the like? I think that retirement accounts are another appealing source of revenue and are vulnerable as well.
  3. On the news Bernie Sanders is on a roll. The public schools and "leftist" college professors have sufficiently indoctrinated enough generations that they do not see socialism as the evil it is. Many respond by saying "we already have socialism, Medicare and Medicaid." So we can only hope that the voters in the upcoming primary states will vote against him but that would leave us with another socialist in the form of Hillary who may yet be indicted. If that happens then maybe Biden will get back in for the Democrats. Trump is calling Sanders a Communist and the Republicans are likely to see him as the antidote to the Establishment candidates. Where is John Galt when you need him? Gary Johnson comes to mind as he is running as the Libertarian Party candidate! Got my vote!
  4. Thank you for your input. I appreciate your response. My interpretation of your analysis in this context is that sure enough the value of the fiat paper currency which is unconstitutional will indeed, as has happened to every other paper currency including the one used to pay the men who came forward to fight the British in the American Revolution, will become, to use your conclusion: "worthless."
  5. No, I cannot say except to point out that these men who are making us aware of the danger have their reasons for doing so. There is no question that every central bank in the world has been competing to weaken the purchasing power of their own currency supposedly to facilitate their own exports. It is evident that many countries have been reducing their holdings of U.S. Treasuries to the point that the Federal Reserve has been purchasing U.S. Treasuries with newly printed fiat paper. Trillions of U.S. dollars, not to be confused with Constitutional dollars which the Coinage Act of 1792 held to be a coin containing 371 grains and four sixteenths of a grain of silver, have been printed during the last few years, enlarging the national debt to over 19 trillion which does not count the unfunded liability of promises made to pay retirement and Medicare payments for the baby boom population which are reaching the age of eligibility at the rate of over ten thousand a day for the next ten to fifteen years. Lawrence Kotlikoff estimates that the national debt is actually in the realm of 256 trillion dollars! Is that not specific enough for you? Is it any wonder that our leader is tempted to help himself to the retirement accounts of the nation as well as the bank accounts? I believe that enabling legislation has been adopted in the US as well as Europe since the banking crisis in Cyprus. Not to mention the enormous derivative market which is in the quadrillions at risk. Hope you are prepared as there appears to be no doubt whether it will collapse just just when. gg
  6. Has anyone else encountered quite a few announcements recently by well credentialed pundits in the financial sector, e.g. James Richards, James Dale Davidson, Bonner, who are all warning of a collapse which will not just affect shareholders, investors, homeowners, retirees, those on Social Security, the employed, in other words virtually everyone in society. Of course they offer their advise in their newsletters as to how to prepare for, survive the collapse with your assets intact or even profit from the disaster. There are threats of not being able to access your savings as banks become unwilling to let you withdraw from your account or the government announces a bank holiday and all the banks close at once. ATMs do not let you withdraw funds. One even mentioned that SWAT teams enter your home to search for any money which you may have sequestered there! Has anyone here tried to make a withdrawal lately? I think there is a limit as to how much one may withdraw with out the bank being required to inform the government of amounts over or equal to $5,000 at a time? It gets worse. Fortunately we all are susceptible to "normalcy bias" so hardly anyone allows themselves to accept the possibility this might happen. That will only make matters worse if and when it does happen. Bonner has taken out radio ads for you to go to his video entitled "strange warning.com" in which he laments the failure of our credit system. Just wonder if anyone here has paid any attention to this stuff?
  7. I am glad that both Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul will stay in the race, although both are anti choice on a woman's right to choose. I imagine that either would get a boost if they came to their senses and became pro choice, at least in the general election. I realize that is a dream. At this time, 4:44AM, Cruz won and beat Trump by a good margin, and Rubio came in third, followed by Carson at 10 and Paul at 5%. Have yet to hear Trump's take on the outcome. Part of me wishes Trump would decide to drop out but given his narcissism he will go on at least to New Hampshire. Maybe if he loses there too he'll drop out. Interviews with voters in Iowa were revealing at the ignorance and shallowness of their decision making.
  8. A patriotic business is selling a generator so people with one will be able to survive an electromagnetic pulse attack on the USA which they claim is a goal of the jihadists. All it would take is a detonation of a nuclear weapon tens of thousands of feet above the country to render our electric grid useless causing the country to go dark for enough months or years to lead to the deaths of nine our of ten citizens. If there were a way to protect us and the grid our government evidently has other priorities. I haven't heard any of the candidates for president talk about it or make promises to deal with this threat. Another way to shut down the electrical grid would be to destroy the nine or so power stations which remain vulnerable to attack as they were built in a gentler time where no one even dreamed that anyone would think of doing so. Not paranoid enough! In the meantime SFL and YAL continue to grow in number exponentially. Given enough time there will be millions and tens of millions of such enlightened folks. Maybe then.
  9. Is it true that pollsters are able to reach people who use only cell phones nowadays? In any case the whatever you want to call it is coming. James Dale Davidson makes an irrefutable case that we are on the verge of a severe collapse of the economy, the stock market, the housing market, the dollar, the bond market... and its all because of the curse of growing and unsustainable national debt. Well they still have the printing press which will only make matters worse. If the democrats get re elected they will blame everyone else and use the crisis to expand their power. If the GOP gets in will they know what to do and what not to do? The rumor is that the GOP upper echelon intends to broker the convention and might fund a run by Paul Ryan to be the next president! Even if that were to happen I don;t know if he would know what to do either but would surely be better that most of the alternatives. We find ourselves living in interesting times!
  10. I was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, but my family moved to Brooklyn when I was four years old. So I feel a little kinship with your guy. I heard him criticize Trump about his unconstitutional stands but detect a certain hypocrisy. Why Cristee upholds the War On Drugs as a proper function of the Federal government is beyond my understanding. He poses as an advocate of individual freedom doesn't he? Maybe I am not aware of other inconsistencies. Don't these people think? Even the most libertarian among the Republicans is anti choice on the abortion issue and does not appear open to reason. That would be Rand Paul who made the point that most if not all of his supporters are young and use cell phones and not land lines which accounts for his low numbers in the polls. I gather he has a strong ground game in Iowa so should do unexpectedly well in the caucuses.
  11. How I wish there were no clouds overhead in central MA tonight so I could witness this meteor shower. Unfortunately the weather is not cooperating and I will have to find other amusements. Doing jigsaw puzzles or using my Kregjig to build a TV stand will not compare to the thrill of watching such an astronomical occurrence. Maybe next year. Be sure to go outside and to look up if the sky is clear where you live tonight.
  12. If we can only convince the Muslims that there is in fact no such thing as an afterlife that might put the damper on their enthusiasm to end their own lives on this Earth to "get there" where they have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe they will continue to exist in their version of Heaven or Nirvana. That will be tough coming from a country like ours which is filled to the brim with people who have also been indoctrinated from childhood with a belief in such an Afterlife themselves! Supposedly if one person believes such nonsense he is considered to be delusional and psychotic but if an entire society of such individuals holds such a nonsensical belief it is considered to be cultural and normal rather than delusional.
  13. I was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey but my family moved to the Flatbush section of Brooklyn when I was four years old. I was drawn to science and had no interest in politics until many years later. I had the good fortune to meet a fellow resident after I moved back to Brooklyn from San Francisco where I had done an internship after medical school in Buffalo, N.Y. He was involved in a discussion over lunch one day at which I learned that the interns and residents in the city hospitals had formed a union and were suing the city for an increase in pay. Various job actions were being considered and in response to one fellow's objection to a plan to turn away patients sending them to other hospitals I heard this comment which I have never seen or read in Objectivist literature: "No man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need!" It was met with derision and argument but after the dust settled and everyone left I asked the fellow to explain. He took my question to be for him to prove what he had said and proceeded to say that in order to do so we had to agree on certain laws of logic and certain axiomatic concepts. This led to a statement that there are no contradictions in the universe. Just a restatement of the law of identity. He went on to derive a moral standard of Man's Life on Earth being that principle. On to an exposition of the concept of rights and the proper function of government in a free society. He recommended that I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand which led to The Objectivist Newsletter etc. Incidentally, I am sure that most if not all of those student activists recruited by SFL and YAL are being encouraged to read such works as well. This manifestation of the movement to restore our constitutional republic is more likely to be sustained from what I see of it. Both websites for http://studentsforliberty.org and http://www.yaliberty.org have their annual reports available for all to see. Their growth to date is impressive and one might extrapolate to one's hearts content. Between the two of them there are about 500K student activists. Of course it takes time for a new recruit to read, study and learn enough to be a successful recruiter him or herself. Still if the time to double is as long as one year to 1M, 2Y to 2M, 3Y to 4M, 4Y to 8M, 5Y to 16M, 6Y to 32M, and you begin to see how powerful this movement can be given that ideas move the world and their ideas are rational.
  14. YAF sounds to me to be an organization for young conservatives decades ago. I am not aware if it was on college campuses as both YAL and SFL are. I just received a mailing from YAL whose founder started it in 2008. It has grown impressively to being on over 675 campuses and has over 400K following it on social media with over 247,000 student activists who are recruiting others to the cause as well as educating themselves and working with the many other organizations devoted to the same objective.
  15. JTS, Thanks for the links. I hope everyone checks out these sites to see for themselves that these young people are passionate about being part of a rapidly growing movement. Many say that they have personally benefitted by being involved in the activities of these two organizations. Certainly knowing that they are not alone in helping others, one at a time, to learn about the liberty movement is inspiring in itself. I have no doubt that these two groups, SFL and YAL will simply continue to increase their presence on more and more campuses across the country and within each campus as well. I attended one of their conferences to see for myself and it was worth the effort. Their affiliations with so many other organizations within the pro liberty movement assures that they are being made aware of the work of Ayn Rand, the Austrian school of economics and so many others. Despite the recent happenings on certain campuses in which students show their lack of respect for sharing ideas which might be offensive to some I have no doubt that SFL and YAL have staying power with reason on their side. We will see.
  16. Just to enlighten those who have not been aware that there are college activists affiliated with leading exponents of the pro individual freedom, limited government, sound money movement. Both groups started in 2008 and are growing exponentially. Students For Liberty has chapters all over the world and over fifty regional conferences with more each year. Young Americans For Liberty has its 2015 annual report online showing its progress with over 247,000 student activists on several hundred campuses and growing. If you are familiar with exponential growth you realize that their numbers and influence may just grow into the millions and then tens of millions in a very few years. The organization and its many affiliates is primarily educational and is driven by the students themselves with help and support from their upper echelon. They are both affiliated with many orgs in the freedom movement and hear talks from many experienced intellectuals at their conferences. Worth supporting as it is a happening in the high schools and colleges which promises to keep growing and more effective in its intention to grow and enlighten their classmates. They have told their professors that they are teaching their fellow students in the dorms what their professes refuse to teach them in class! www.studentsforliberty.org www. YAL.org See for yourself and consider supporting them with even a token donation. Perhaps you might attend one of their conferences to experience their passion and dedication to our cause. galtgulch
  17. Here is the latest blog post by Henry Mark Holzer: HENRY MARK HOLZER LEGAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com Another mile on the road to Pearl Harbor III WWW.NATIONALREVIEW.COM, SEPTEMBER 20, 2014 The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia Between beheadings, they’ll help train the “moderate” Syrian rebels. By Andrew C. McCarthy The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive. And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists. The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But the confusion is understandable. Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars. The Obama administration regards the Saudi government as America’s key partner in the fight against Islamic State jihadists. The increasingly delusional Secretary of State John Kerry reasons that this is because the fight is more ideological than military. Get it? The world’s leading propagators of the ideology that breeds violent jihad are our best asset in an ideological struggle against violent jihadists. Aloof as ever from irony, Mr. Kerry gave this assessment while visiting King Abdullah in Riyadh on, of all days, September 11 — the thirteenth anniversary of the day when 15 Saudis joined four other terrorists in mass-murdering nearly 3,000 Americans in furtherance of the Islamic-supremacist ideology on which they were reared. The 19 were, of course, members of al-Qaeda, the jihadist network sprung from Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist “Wahhabi” Islam. Secretary Kerry and President Obama, like British prime minister David Cameron, insist that the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda-launched jihadist faction, is not Islamic. Evidently, this is owing to the terrorists’ savage tactics. In essence, however, they are the same tactics practiced by our “moderate Islamist” allies. Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam: the birthplace of Mohammed, the site of the Hijra by which Islam marks time — the migration from Mecca to Medina under siege by Mohammed and his followers. The Saudi king is formally known as the “Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques” (in Mecca and Medina); he is the guardian host of the Haj pilgrimage that Islam makes mandatory for able-bodied believers. The despotic Saudi kingdom is governed by Islamic law — sharia. No other law is deemed necessary and no contrary law is permissible. It is thus under the authority of sharia that the Saudis routinely behead prisoners. I happen to own the edition of the Koran “with English Translation of ‘The Meanings and Commentary,’” published at the “King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex” — Fahd was Abdullah’s brother and predecessor. As the introductory pages explain, this version is produced under the auspices of the regime’s “Ministry of Hajj and Endowments.” In its sura (or chapter) 47, Allah commands Muslims, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.” The accompanying English commentary helpfully explains: When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigor, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves. [italicized parentheticals in original.] Sura 8 underscores the point with another of Allah’s exhortations: “I am with you: Give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them.” Following the 9/11 attacks, Americans Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were among prisoners notoriously decapitated by al-Qaeda. Reacting to their beheadings, Timothy Furnish, a U.S. Army veteran with a doctorate in Islamic history, wrote a comprehensive Middle East Quarterly essay on “Beheading in the Name of Islam.” As Dr. Furnish recounted, The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him. As is always the case, the prophet’s example has been emulated by Muslims through the centuries. When Muslims conquered central Spain in the eleventh century, for example, the caliph had 24,000 corpses beheaded; the remains were piled into makeshift minarets atop which muezzins sang the praises of Allah. In more modern times, Furnish adds, “The Ottoman Empire was the decapitation state par excellence” — employing the practice to terrorize enemies for centuries, including, to take just one of many examples, beheading hundreds of British soldiers captured in Egypt in 1807. A pity Sheikh Cameron was not around back then to correct the caliphate’s understanding of Islam. The Saudis behead prisoners for such “offenses” as apostasy. You see, our “moderate Islamist” allies brook no dissent and permit no freedom of conscience. In this, the world’s most identifiably Islamic regime is no different from its Shiite counterpart (and regional competitor) in Tehran — to which President Obama respectfully refers by its preferred name, “the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Sharia is the law there, too. While the regime is said to have repealed the punishment of decapitation, it still prescribes stoning, flogging, and amputation for various violations, such as adultery and petty theft. Such cruel — but not at all unusual — punishments are designed to enforce a societal system that, as I’ve previously outlined, degrades and dehumanizes women, while subjecting apostates and homosexuals to death and non-Muslims to systematic discrimination. As night follows day, young Muslims schooled in the ideology promoted in Saudi Arabia gravitate to jihadist networks such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. As recited in Reliance of the Traveller, an authoritative sharia manual endorsed by scholars at the ancient al-Azhar University in Egypt and the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” They are simply acting on what “moderate Islamists” have been teaching them. And now Republicans in Congress have joined Democrats to support President Obama’s hare-brained scheme to train 5,000 “moderate” Syrian rebels. As every sentient person knows, a force of that size will have no chance of defeating the Islamic State or al-Qaeda — even if we charitably assume that many in its ranks do not defect to those organizations, as they have been wont to do. The rebels will similarly have no chance against the Iran-backed Assad regime. In sum, our government, nearly $18 trillion in debt, will expend another $500 million to school 5,000 “moderate Islamists” in military tactics that cannot win the war in Syria but could eventually be used in the jihad against the United States. Welcome to Libya . . . the Sequel. Oh, and did I mention that the training of these “moderate” rebels will take place in “moderate” Saudi Arabia? — Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
  18. I admired Hamilton because he fought next to Washington during the Revolution as commander of a cannon battery thus risking his life. But it was disheartening to discover that Hamilton favored having a King who would appoint governors of the States and especially that he recommended a central bank. I have not yet read Hamilton's Curse which recounts all the misguided ideas Hamilton had which have been implemented and haunt us to this day. What bothers me even more was that so much was given in to the representatives of the slave states during the convention at which a Declaration of Independence was voted on. In the first draft there were clauses which would have abolished slavery. They had to be deleted in order to get the vote for independence as representatives of the slave states had made sure that a vote for independence had to be unanimous earlier in the convention. I wish we knew whether there was any attempt to persuade those slave state representatives but even if they had voted for independence the Constitution would not have been ratified by their state legislatures. Has everyone here seen Twelve Years a Slave which depicts some of the horror these people had to endure. No excuse. To think that Wilberforce succeeded in having slavery abolished without a civil war in England. Henry Mark Holzer posted another video on his blog about the present day evil young men in our society who engage in the Knock Out game which I cannot bear to watch. It is rather disheartening that such thugs exist in America. I think one got to be in the most powerful position in the land. He may not hit you when you are not looking but is more than willing to steal your hard earned money as his purposes are superior to your own. Just like he did with the health insurance if yours was not good enough. Alex, I think you should see the musical 1776 to begin with. Slavery still exists in the form of the Income Tax and other taxes. Then read Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island which exposes the Federal Reserve System which Hamilton naively favored as a central bank. gg
  19. The Supreme Court is a branch of the Federal Government so it is no surprise that it almost invariably decides cases in favor of an expansion of Federal power. It arrogated to itself the authority to make such decisions early in the history of our Republic. Those beginning with Alexander Hamilton who wanted the central government to have a power not explicitly granted in Article 1 Section 8 found ways of interpreting its clauses to read into the Constitution powers they wished were there in the first place. They have gotten away with this because the masses of people remain ignorant of such matters and have given it no thought. In some cases there are those who benefit from programs which are unconstitutional. There are books which do address this overreach involving the Supreme Court. These come to mind. Levy: The Dirty Dozen Richard H. Timberlake: Constitutional Money: A review of Supreme Court Monetary Decisions Henry Mark Holzer: The American Constitution and Ayn Rand's "Inner Contradiction" Tom Wood's: Nullification If we have enough time upcoming generations, perhaps as yet unborn, will learn the truth about these matters. Unfortunately our current situation has something in common with the situation which led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Too many people are on the receiving end of a central government handout or paycheck. Still the numbers of college and high school student activists involved in the pro freedom movement are growing perhaps nearly exponentially via the Students For Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty in addition to the efforts of Hillsdale College, Institute For Humane Studies (www.theihs.org) and others. gg
  20. Michael, I had watched this through Saturday evening. There is one point which stands out and one point that I might have missed if they made it. First, they make it clear that they were ready to go to assist and were told by a CIA man who was on a telephone, to stand down, which delayed their departure for twenty five minutes. Bret Bair asks if they think the ambassador would be alive today if they had been ordered to go and were not late by twenty five minutes. They claim that he would have survived. (It was not clear how many were involved in this rescue attempt, just the three of them?) The point that I wish they had made with more emphasis is that the Bengazi Embassy had been requesting a build up in defense for months and Hillary Clinton must have been aware of these desperate pleas for more troops to be sent to properly defend their Embassy. This point has been made in the media but most of the criticism has to do with the lack of response on the day of the assault. What possible reason could there be to refuse the plea for more troops to properly defend the Embassy. Hillary Clinton should have been aware of these pleas and should have enabled the buildup to have happened long before the attack. She was Secretary of State and was in a position to have authorized such a buildup. When she finally did testify she said that "It doesn't matter" but it does and she is responsible and failed. Are we to believe that the media is letting her get a pass because of their wish that she become the next president? gg
  21. MM, I appreciate the history lesson but not the ad hominem attack on the Austrian school of economics nor likening it to Marxism. I am sure that all your historical references are valid but despite your wisdom you have not done more than make an assertion that Austrian Economics is "baloney." As a child in Flatbush, which I considered to be the center of modern civilization, complete with typewriters, radio and the start of television, not to mention a freight train pulled noisily along a track a couple of tree lined blocks from home by a real steam engine, I had the opportunity to taste real baloney from the delicatessen on the corner and so I know baloney when I see it. The Austrian School of Economics is definitely not baloney. What beef do you have with von Mises, Rothbard, Reisman, Hazlitt and the rest? gg
  22. Carl Menger, in his book,Principles of Economics and in a monograph on Money, he explains the origin of a medium of exchange. I found that in a book entitled Champion of Freedom, Human Action A 50 Year Tribute. Its first article by Richard M. Ebeling, The Austrian Economists and the Keynesian Revolution: The Great Depression and the Economics of the Short Run, states that one must begin with the thought of Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics, in his Principles of Economics. <<<"">>> I don't have the time to copy it here now. The gist of it is that in a barter situation one might be willing to accept a good A one does not really want but may realize it can be traded for the desired good B. That good A serves as the medium of exchange. It is an indirect way of obtaining a desired good. Over time certain commodities become recognized to possess qualities which make it more useful as the medium of exchange. Money begins in this way as another commodity on the market. Makes sense to me. Question now is how much counterfeiting is possible by all central banks without causing a loss of confidence in the currencies and a resultant collapse?According to Jim Rickards, author of The Death of Money, we stand on the verge of that abyss as he predicts we have reached a point within six months of such a devastating conclusion with a worldwide twenty year Depression to follow, with perhaps a hyperinflation preceding a deflation and Depression. gg
  23. Adam, To my way of thinking, this "evolution" in which a Constitutional clearly stated fact is turned on its head, so that the diametrical opposite comes to be the case in the present, just means that it has become UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Sure the Supreme Court is responsible for upholding the laws which Congress passed but that is not the same as amending the COnstitution. Richard Timberlake wrote Constitutional Money: A review of Supreme Court Monetary Decisions of which there have been nine. The book was reviewed in the www.fff.org Future of Freedom Foundation publication to which I subscribe. How anyone can respect the Supreme Court after it upheld The Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 or the Selective Service Act which was reviewed by Henry Mark Holzer in The Objectivist, is beyond belief. Having the Supreme Court adjudicate whether the Congress has a power is like having your mother in law decide disagreements between a man and his wife. It invariably sides with the central government right from the start. The people are supposed to be the sovereigns and they have been either asleep or kept in the dark all these years. But they are being enlightened. The antidote is known it just depends on whether there is enough time. gg
  24. This is what the children are watching these days. They didn't make them like this when I was a child. The whole movie builds towards a delightful and moving climactic scene in which a young penguin sings a song based on a Puccini opera, bravely defending his father surrounded by intimidating elephant seals. It can be quite moving for those of us who share certain values. Here is a link to the video with English subtitles: And here are the lyrics: "No Pa, This is unfair."" After all you have done, you really deserved better... Nothing makes sense in this world It's all a big pile of crazy... And the kings are all fools! Where is the honor, When a solemn promise is just a pretty lie? And the mighty mock the courage of the humble! Although he's just an ordinary penguin... My daddy taught me, you don't need to be colossal... To be a great heart... You don't need to fly... To be awesome! My hero...My father. I am surprised no one here posted a link before. The Happy Feet movies are very popular and this one is from Happy Feet Two.
  25. Henry Mark Holzer blogs on the subject in detail and advocates that his blog be spread far and wide: SUNDAY, AUGUST 17, 2014 Ham sandwich time in Texas: The Perry Indictment It is said that grand juries are so much in thrall to the power of prosecutors, the latter could indict a ham sandwich. Well, on Friday a special prosecutor didn’t indict a ham sandwich but instead charged Texas governor Rick Perry with the commission of two state crimes. However, when all is said and done, when the political vendetta is exposed and over with, the prosecutor will have choked on his sham indictment. First, a quick lesson in Criminal Law 101’s prosecutorial burdens. The prosecutor must convince [1] a unanimous jury, [2] beyond a reasonable doubt, [3] overcoming the presumption of innocence, [4]with the criminal statutes’ meaning strictly construed against the State,[5] of every essential element of each crime charged. Please put aside all the premature, and much erroneous, commentary that’s been generated in the last 48 hours, and follow me into the sketchy, bare-bones, superficial, unprovable, less-than-two-page indictment to see what those essential elements are under Texas law. Count I: Perry “intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant . . . which were approved and authorized by the Legislature . . . to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit [of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office]” Translation: Perry vetoed the appropriation. Though not cited in the indictment, this sounds like the Texas law entitled “Abuse of Official Capacity.” V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02 § 39.02. Abuse of Official Capacity (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment. Although much of the preliminary commentary about the indictment seems to believe that Count I charges Perry with the threat to veto (surely not a crime, even in Texas), the language quoted above—“dealing with such property”—albeit somewhat opaquely, alleges that he violated Section 39.02 by his actual veto. I’ll get to the threat in Count II. Proper analysis of the statute begins, and ends, with what it actually says. (Even though it will become clear later in the judicial proceedings that the legislature never intended either section charged in the indictment to apply to a governor’s threat to veto, and then actual veto, that intent is irrelevant. The statute says what it says, and there is no need to go beyond it.) First, the section requires [1] a specific “intent.” Since this is the defendant’s state of mind, almost always it must be proved by circumstantial evidence. That specific intent must be to “obtain a benefit,” which is not charged, or to [2] “harm another,” which has been charged. Presumably, here the “harm” was Perry’s veto of a legislative appropriation, and the “another” was the Public Integrity Unit (which may or may not be considered “another” under the statute). That specific intent to harm another must manifest itself in a [3]“misuse,” a standard definition of which is “to use improperly.” In other words, the indictment charges Perry with improperly usingappropriated funds by line-item-vetoing them. A novel kind of “misuse,” to put it mildly. All three of these essential elements of the Section 39.02 crime the prosecutor must prove. Count II: Perry “by means of coercion, to-wit: threatening to veto legislation . . . to provide funding for the . . . Public Integrity Unit . . . unless [the] . . . District Attorney . . . resigned . . . “intentionally or knowingly . . . attempted to influence [her] . . . in the specific performance of her official duty, to-wit: the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities . . . .” Translation: Perry threatened to use his line-item veto unless the DA resigned. Why did he want her to resign? Because she was a drunken, abusive, irresponsible, literally unethical law enforcement public servant who, in Perry’s sound judgment as Governor of the State of Texas, had necessarily lost his confidence and that of the public, bench, and bar of Travis County, Texas. Though not cited in the indictment, this sounds like the Texas law entitled “Coercion of Public Servant or Voter.” V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 36.03 § 36.03. Coercion of Public Servant or Voter (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he: (1) [A]ttempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servantto violate the public servant's known legal duty.... What are the essential elements of this crime? Per Section 36.03, the prosecution would have to prove that Perry’s threat to veto the funding sought to influence the DA’s [1] specific [2]exercise [3] or performance or [4] violate her known legal duty. Putting aside the policy absurdity of this count because threatening to veto is what mayors, governors, and presidents do every day of the week, and putting aside the unacceptable democratic and separation of powers implications of every county DA in America holding a criminal charge over the heads of elected executives who threaten to, or actually, veto, the fatal problem with Count II is that the prosecutor must prove[1] and either [2], [3] or [4] of these essential elements of the Section 39.02 crime. But he can’t, unless the jury is as corrupt as he is. Focusing on the alleged threat, and even accepting for the sake of argument that under Texas law it could be considered coercive, it was not aimed at any of the DA’s specific exercise or performance, or sought to coerce violation of any of her legal duties. Perry did not want to influence the DA. He wanted her gone. The governor of Texas was commendably trying to coerce the drunken, abusive, irresponsible, literally unethical DA to resign—a far cry from what Section 36.03 expressly makes a crime (and from what the intent of the Texas legislature must have been when it enacted the statute). The indictment’s express allegations that Perry’s coercion was aimed at a specific aspect of the DA’s exercise or performance, or sought to cause her to violate her legal duty, is as sham as the entire indictment itself. One last—but crucially important—point. Regarding Count I—Section 39.02, Abuse of Official Capacity—there are a mere 4 reported cases:Goldsberry, Campbell, Megason, and Trevino. Not a single one of them is relevant to the facts of the Perry case. Regarding Count II—Section 36.03, Coercion of Public Servant or Voter— there are only 2 reported cases: Tobias and Philipps. As with Count I, neither one is relevant to the facts of the Perry case. In other words, there is no Texas case-law precedent, none, to support either criminal charge that has been brought against Governor Perry for his threat or his veto. The indictment—which should be an embarrassment to every fair-minded member of the Texas bench and bar—deserves to be promptly quashed. Please forward this blog far and wide. Professor EmeritusHENRY MARK HOLZERBrooklyn Law School (www.henrymarkholzer.com)(www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com)hank@henrymarkholzer.com