May 082013
 

Noam Chomsky CPE Acceptance Speech

Noam Chomsky’s acceptance speech upon receiving the inaugural People Before Profits Award from the Center for Popular Economics on September 27, 2012. He discusses the dysfunctional election and media systems that contribute to the maintenance of a closed and rigged government advancing the agendas of corporations and the wealthy.

May 062013
 

Anti-Bitcoin Socialist Panel Discussion Propaganda in New Zealand

This “panel” of apologists for socialism and big Government, “discuss” all the problems with BitCoin.  What is a “social contract” exactly anyway.  Is that the one where you are sold into bondage, without your consent? And  you are required to continue to pay into a system that provides no value to you, just because this is  what you have done all your life, when you realize the whole thing is a fraud?

The first shill talks about how we are “bound” to the commitment to certain “obligations” and rules to how our “currency” actually “works”.  What if I don’t agree with being bound to obligations to supposed currency that works only for the RULING CLASS?  I am not allowed to boycott it.  Well under  the old system you get the manipulated currency that is controlled by banks and government.  If you don’t like it then there is no other choice.  With anything else if I dont want to buy a certain product or service, don’t buy it.  How can one boycott the currency? Well before BitCoin, YOU CAN’T.  This is a gigantic problem when you are a government this is a big Problem, they can not allow people to boycott them!

Shill #1 is bothered and you can see he is shuddering over the fact that it is “Free” of politics, “Free” from the “obligation” to society actually he means the Banks and Government.  He also describes FaceBook as networking system and BitCoin as an ANTI-networking system, probably because there is no central authority to get paid, every single time you make a transaction.

BitCoin is also “Highly Individualistic” It is strikingly interesting how opposed he is to the idea that individuals have rights.  All this factors make it “sinister”!  After touching on the possibility that people can conduct private transactions to buy drugs (non_government approved ones) or money laundering (private transactions) he goes back to how this contributes to the a “Highly Individualistic Society”.  A highly individualistic society is a gateway to Peace, Love, Creativity and and Ethical Society.

The double talk continues as he states “People can operate anonymously!”, “Nothing Traceable!”, “Avoid Paying Taxes!” and  “Avoid Foreign Exchange Rates!”.   He babbles on about being “bound” as a society.  Have you ever been “bound hand to foot and gagged? I have and it’s not a pleasant experience.   Do you like being Arrested?  You are bound feels great doesn’t it?  Then he goes back to sneering at a individualized Society is such a horrible thing. All of his supposed “reasons” are the exact “reasons” I support BitCoin!

Apr 292013
 

True Causes of the Civil War

Irreconcilable Differences

Simmering animosities between North and South signaled an American apocalypse

Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions. Having acknowledged that, let me also say I have long believed there is no more concise or stirring accounting for the war than the sentiments propounded by Irish poet William Butler Yeats in “The Second Coming,” some lines of which are included in this essay. Yeats wrote his short poem immediately following the catastrophe of World War I, but his thesis of a great, cataclysmic event is universal and timeless.

First Slaves brought to America

It is probably safe to say that the original impetus of the Civil War was set in motion when a Dutch trader offloaded a cargo of African slaves at Jamestown, Va., in 1619. It took nearly 250 eventful years longer for it to boil into a war, but that Dutchman’s boatload was at the bottom of it—a fact that needs to be fixed in the reader’s mind from the start.

Of course there were other things, too. For instance, by the eve of the Civil War the sectional argument had become so far advanced that a significant number of Southerners were convinced that Yankees, like Negroes, constituted an entirely different race of people from themselves.

It is unclear who first put forth this curious interpretation of American history, but just as the great schism burst upon the scene it was subscribed to by no lesser Confederate luminaries than president Jefferson Davis himself and Admiral Raphael Semmes, of CSS Alabama fame, who asserted that the North was populated by descendants of the cold Puritan Roundheads of Oliver Cromwell—who had overthrown and executed the king of England in 1649—while others of the class were forced to flee to Holland, where they also caused trouble, before finally settling at Plymouth Rock, Mass.

Southerners on the other hand, or so the theory went, were the hereditary offspring of Cromwell’s enemies, the “gay cavaliers” of King Charles II and his glorious Restoration, who had imbued the South with their easygoing, chivalrous and honest ways. Whereas, according to Semmes, the people of the North had evolved accordingly into “gloomy, saturnine, and fanatical” people who “seemed to repel all the more kindly and generous impulses” (omitting—possibly in a momentary lapse of memory—that the original settlers of other Southern states, such as Georgia, had been prison convicts or, in the case of Louisiana, deportees, and that Semmes’ own wife was a Yankee from Ohio).

How beliefs such as this came to pass in the years between 1619 and 1860 reveals the astonishing capacity of human nature to confound traditional a posteriori deduction in an effort to justify what had become by then largely unjustifiable. But there is blame enough for all to go around.

From that first miserable boatload of Africans in Jamestown, slavery spread to all the settlements, and, after the Revolutionary War, was established by laws in the states. But by the turn of the 19th century, slavery was confined to the South, where the economy was almost exclusively agricultural. For a time it appeared the practice was on its way to extinction. Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson probably summed up the attitude of the day when he defined the South’s “peculiar institution” as a necessary evil, which he and many others believed, or at least hoped, would wither away of its own accord since it was basically wasteful and unproductive.

Then along came Eli Whitney with his cotton gin, suddenly making it feasible to grow short-staple cotton that was fit for the great textile mills of England and France. This in turn, 40 years later, prompted South Carolina’s prominent senator John C. Calhoun to declare that slavery—far from being merely a “necessary evil”—was actually a “positive good,” because, among other things, in the years since the gin’s invention, the South had become fabulously rich, with cotton constituting some 80 percent of all U.S. exports.

But beneath this great wealth and prosperity, America seethed. Whenever you have two people—or peoples—joined in politics but doing diametrically opposing things, it is almost inevitable that at some point tensions and jealousies will break out. In the industrial North, there was a low, festering resentment that eight of the first 11 U.S. presidents were Southerners—and most of them Virginians at that. For their part, the agrarian Southerners harbored lingering umbrage over the internal improvements policy propagated by the national government, which sought to expand and develop roads, harbors, canals, etc., but which the Southerners felt was disproportionately weighted toward Northern interests. These were the first pangs of sectional dissension.

Then there was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned.

This inflammatory piece of legislation, passed with the aid of Northern politicians, imposed a tax or duty on imported goods that caused practically everything purchased in the South to rise nearly half-again in price. This was because the South had become used to shipping its cotton to England and France and in return receiving boatloads of inexpensive European goods, including clothing made from its own cotton. However, as years went by, the North, particularly New England, had developed cotton mills of its own—as well as leather and harness manufactories, iron and steel mills, arms and munitions factories, potteries, furniture makers, silversmiths and so forth. And with the new tariff putting foreign goods out of financial reach, Southerners were forced to buy these products from the North at what they considered exorbitant costs.

Smart money might have concluded it would be wise for the South to build its own cotton mills and its own manufactories, but its people were too attached to growing cotton. A visitor in the 1830s described the relentless cycle of the planters’ misallocation of spare capital: “To sell cotton to buy Negroes—to make more cotton to buy more Negroes—‘ad infinitum.’”

Such was the Southern mindset, but the tariff nearly kicked off the war 30 years early because, as the furor rose, South Carolina’s Calhoun, who was then running for vice president of the United States, declared that states—his own state in particular—were under no obligation to obey the federal tariff law, or to collect it from ships entering its harbors. Later, South Carolina legislators acted on this assertion and defied the federal government to overrule them, lest the state secede. This set off the Nullification Crisis, which held in theory (or wishful thinking) that a state could nullify or ignore any federal law it held was not in its best interests. The crisis was defused only when President Andrew Jackson sent warships into Charleston Harbor—but it also marked the first time a Southern state had threatened to secede from the Union.

The incident also set the stage for the states’ rights dispute, pitting state laws against the notion of federal sovereignty—an argument which became ongoing into the next century, and the next. “States’ rights” also became a Southern watchword for Northern (or “Yankee”) intrusion on the Southern lifestyle. States’ rights political parties sprang up over the South; one particular example of just how volatile the issue had become was embodied in the decision in 1831 of Nathaniel and Elizabeth Gist (ironically from Union, S.C.) to name their firstborn son “States Rights Gist,” a name he bore proudly until November 30, 1864, when, as a Confederate brigadier general, he was shot and killed leading his men at the Battle of Franklin in Tennessee.

Though the tariff question remained an open sore from its inception in 1828 right up to the Civil War, many modern historians have dismissed the impact it had on the growing rift between the two sections of the country. But any careful reading of newspapers, magazines or correspondence of the era indicates that here is where the feud began to fester into hatred. Some Southern historians in the past have argued this was the root cause of the Civil War. It wasn’t, but it was a critical ingredient in the suspicion and mistrust Southerners were beginning to feel about their Northern brethren, and by extension about the Union itself. Not only did the tariff issue raise for the first time the frightening specter of Southern secession, but it also seemed to have marked a mazy kind of dividing line in which the South vaguely started thinking of itself as a separate entity—perhaps even a separate country. Thus the cat, or at least the cat’s paw, was out of the bag.

All the resenting and seething naturally continued to spill over into politics. The North, with immigrants pouring in, vastly outnumbered the South in population and thus controlled the House of Representatives. But the U.S. Senate, by a sort of gentleman’s agreement laced with the usual bribes and threats, had remained 50-50, meaning that whenever a territory was admitted as a free state, the South got to add a corresponding slave state—and vice versa. That is until 1820, when Missouri applied for statehood and anti-slavery forces insisted it must be free. Ultimately, this resulted in Congress passing the Missouri Compromise, which decreed that Missouri could come in as a slave state (and Maine as a free state) but any other state created north of Missouri’s southern border would have to be free. That held the thing together for longer than it deserved.

In plain acknowledgement that slavery was an offensive practice, Congress in 1808 banned the importation of African slaves. Nevertheless there were millions of slaves living in the South, and their population continued growing. Beginning in the late 18th century, a small group of people in New England concluded that slavery was a social evil, and began to agitate for its abolition—hence, of course, the term “abolitionist.”

Over the years this group became stronger and by the 1820s had turned into a full-fledged movement, preaching abolition from pulpits and podiums throughout the North, publishing pamphlets and newspapers, and generally stirring up sentiments both fair and foul in the halls of Congress and elsewhere. At first the abolitionists concluded that the best solution was to send the slaves back to Africa, and they actually acquired land in what is now Liberia, returning a small colony of ex-bondsmen across the ocean.

By the 1840s, the abolitionists had decided that slavery was not simply a social evil, but a “moral wrong,” and began to agitate on that basis.

This did not sit well with the churchgoing Southerners, who were now subjected to being called unpleasant and scandalous names by Northerners they did not even know. This provoked, among other things, religious schisms, which in the mid-1840s caused the American Methodist and Baptist churches to split into Northern and Southern denominations. Somehow the Presbyterians hung together, but it was a strain, while the Episcopal church remained a Southern stronghold and firebrand bastion among the wealthy and planter classes. Catholics also maintained their solidarity, prompting cynics to suggest it was only because they owed their allegiance to the pope of Rome rather than to any state, country or ideal.

Abolitionist literature began showing up in the Southern mails, causing Southerners to charge the abolitionists with attempting to foment a slave rebellion, the mere notion of which remained high on most Southerners’ anxiety lists. Murderous slave revolts had occurred in Haiti, Jamaica and Louisiana and more recently resulted in the killing of nearly 60 whites during the Nat Turner slave uprising in Virginia in 1831.

During the Mexican War the United States acquired enormous territories in the West, and what by then abolitionists called the “slave power” was pressing to colonize these lands. That prompted an obscure congressman from Pennsylvania to submit an amendment to a Mexican War funding bill in 1846 that would have prevented slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico—which became known, after its author, as the Wilmot Proviso. Even though it failed to pass into law, the very act of presenting the measure became a cause célèbre among Southerners who viewed it as further evidence that Northerners were not only out to destroy their “peculiar institution,” but their political power as well.

In 1850, to the consternation of Southerners, California was admitted into the Union as a free state—mainly because the Gold Rush miners did not want to find themselves in competition with slave labor. But for the first time it threw the balance of power in the Senate to the Northern states.

By then national politics had become almost entirely sectional, a dangerous business, pitting North against South—and vice versa—in practically all matters, however remote. To assuage Southern fury at the admission of free California, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made Northerners personally responsible for the return of runaway slaves. Contrary to its intentions, the act actually galvanized Northern sentiments against slavery because it seemed to demand direct assent to, and personal complicity with, the practice of human bondage.

During the decade of the 1850s, crisis seemed to pile upon crisis as levels of anger turned to rage, and rage turned to violence. One of the most polarizing episodes between North and South occurred upon the 1852 publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which depicted the slave’s life as a relentless nightmare of sorrow and cruelty. Northern passions were inflamed while furious Southerners dismissed the story en masse as an outrageously skewed and unfair portrayal. (After the conflict began it was said that Lincoln, upon meeting Mrs. Stowe, remarked, “So you are the little lady who started this great war?”)

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by frequent presidential candidate Stephen A. Douglas, overturned the Missouri Compromise and permitted settlers in the Kansas Territory to choose for themselves whether they wanted a free or slave state. Outraged Northern abolitionists, horrified at the notion of slavery spreading by popular sovereignty, began raising funds to send anti-slave settlers to Kansas.

Equally outraged Southerners sent their own settlers, and a brutish group known as Border Ruffians from slaveholding Missouri went into Kansas to make trouble for the abolitionists. Into this unfortunate mix came an abolitionist fanatic named John Brown riding with his sons and gang. And as the murders and massacres began to pile up, newspapers throughout the land carried headlines of “Bleeding Kansas.”

In the halls of Congress, the slavery issue had prompted feuds, insults, duels and finally a divisive gag rule that forbade even discussion or debate on petitions about the issue of slavery. But during the Kansas controversy a confrontation between a senator and a congressman stood out as particularly shocking. In 1856, Charles Sumner, a 45-year-old Massachusetts senator and abolitionist, conducted a three-hour rant in the Senate chamber against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, focusing in particular on 59-year-old South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whom he mocked and compared to a pimp, “having taken as his mistress the harlot, Slavery.” Two days later Congressman Preston Brooks, a nephew of the demeaned South Carolinian, appeared beside Sumner’s desk in the Senate and caned him nearly to death with a gold-headed gutta-percha walking stick.

By then, every respectable-sized city, North and South, had a half-dozen newspapers and even small towns had at least one or more; and the revolutionary new telegraph brought the latest news overnight or sooner. Throughout the North, the caning incident triggered profound indignation that was transformed into support for a new anti-slavery political party. In the election of 1856, the new Republican Party ran explorer John C. Frémont, the famed “Pathfinder,” for president, and even though he lost, the party had become a force to be reckoned with.

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its infamous Dred Scott decision, which elated Southerners and enraged Northerners. The court ruled, in essence, that a slave was not a citizen, or even a person, and that slaves were “so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect.” Southerners were relieved that they could now move their slaves in and out of free territories and states without losing them, while in the North the ruling merely drove more people into the anti-slavery camp.

Then in 1859, John Brown, of Bleeding Kansas notoriety, staged a murderous raid on the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va., hoping to inspire a general slave uprising. The raid was thwarted by U.S. troops, and Brown was tried for treason and hanged; but when it came out that he was being financed by Northern abolitionists, Southern anger was profuse and furious—especially after the Northern press elevated Brown to the status of hero and martyr. It simply reinforced the Southern conviction that Northerners were out to destroy their way of life.

As the crucial election of 1860 approached, there arose talk of Southern secession by a group of “fire-eaters”— influential orators who insisted Northern “fanatics” intended to free slaves “by law if possible, by force if necessary.” Hectoring abolitionist newspapers and Northern orators (known as Black, or Radical Republicans) provided ample fodder for that conclusion.

The 1850s drew to a close in near social convulsion and the established political parties began to break apart—always a dangerous sign. The Whigs simply vanished into other parties; the Democrats split into Northern and Southern contingents, each with its own slate of candidates. A Constitutional Union party also appeared, looking for votes from moderates in the Border States. As a practical matter, all of this assured a victory for the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, who was widely, if wrongly, viewed in the South as a rabid abolitionist. With the addition of Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859) as free states, the Southerners’ greatest fears were about to be realized—complete control of the federal government by free-state, anti-slavery politicians.

With the vote split four ways, Lincoln and the Republicans swept into power in November 1860, gaining a majority of the Electoral College, but only a 40 percent plurality of the popular vote. It didn’t matter to the South. In short order, always pugnacious South Carolina voted to secede from the Union, followed by six other Deep South states that were invested heavily in cotton.

Much of the Southern apprehension and ire that Lincoln would free the slaves was misplaced. No matter how distasteful he found the practice of slavery, the overarching philosophy that drove Lincoln was a hard pragmatism that did not include the forcible abolition of slavery by the federal government—for the simple reason that he could not envision any political way of accomplishing it. But Lincoln, like a considerable number of Northern people, was decidedly against allowing slavery to spread into new territories and states. By denying slaveholders the right to extend their boundaries, Lincoln would in effect also be weakening their power in Washington, and over time this would almost inevitably have resulted in the abolition of slavery, as sooner or later the land would have worn out.

But that wasn’t bad enough for the Southern press, which whipped up the populace to such a pitch of fury that Lincoln became as reviled as John Brown himself. These influential journals, from Richmond to Charleston and myriad points in between, painted a sensational picture of Lincoln in words and cartoons as an arch-abolitionist—a kind of antichrist who would turn the slaves loose to rape, murder and pillage. For the most part, Southerners ate it up. If there is a case to be made on what caused the Civil War, the Southern press and its editors would be among the first in the dock. It goes a long way in explaining why only one in three Confederate soldiers were slaveholders, or came from slaveholding families. It wasn’t their slaves they were defending, it was their homes against the specter of slaves-gone-wild.

Interestingly, many if not most of the wealthiest Southerners were opposed to secession for the simple reason that they had the most to lose if it came to war and the war went badly. But in the end they, like practically everyone else, were swept along on the tide of anti-Washington, anti-abolition, anti-Northern and anti-Lincoln rhetoric.

To a lesser extent, the Northern press must accept its share of blame for antagonizing Southerners by damning and lampooning them as brutal lash-wielding torturers and heartless family separators. With all this back and forth carrying on for at least the decade preceding war, by the time hostilities broke out, few either in the North or the South had much use for the other, and minds were set. One elderly Tennessean later expressed it this way: “I wish there was a river of fire a mile wide between the North and the South, that would burn with unquenchable fury forevermore, and that it could never be passable to the endless ages of eternity by any living creature.”

The immediate cause of Southern secession, therefore, was a fear that Lincoln and the Republican Congress would have abolished the institution of slavery—which would have ruined fortunes, wrecked the Southern economy and left the South to contend with millions of freed blacks. The long-term cause was a feeling by most Southerners that the interests of the two sections of the country had drifted apart, and were no longer mutual or worthwhile.

The proximate cause of the war, however, was Lincoln’s determination not to allow the South to go peacefully out of the Union, which would have severely weakened, if not destroyed, the United States.

There is the possibility that war might have been avoided, and a solution worked out, had there not been so much mistrust on the part of the South. Unfortunately, some of the mistrust was well earned in a bombastic fog of hatred, recrimination and outrageous statements and accusations on both sides. Put another way, it was well known that Lincoln was anti-slavery, but both during his campaign for office and after his election, he insisted it was never his intention to disturb slavery where it already existed. The South simply did not believe him.

The Lincoln administration was able to quell secession movements in several Border States—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and what would become West Virginia—by a combination of politics and force, including suspension of the Bill of Rights. But when Lincoln ordered all states to contribute men for an army to suppress the rebellion South Carolina started by firing on Fort Sumter, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina also joined the Confederacy rather than make war on their fellow Southerners.

“Because of incompatibility of temper,” a Southern woman was prompted to lament, “we have hated each other so. If we could only separate, a ‘separation a l’agreable,’ as the French say it, and not have a horrid fight for divorce.”

Things had come a long way during the nearly 250 years since the Dutchman delivered his cargo of African slaves to the wharf at Jamestown, but in 1860 almost everyone agreed that a war wouldn’t last long. Most thought it would be over by summertime.


Article originally published in the September 2010 issue of America’s Civil War.

Read More in Military History Magazine Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!

Causes Of The Civil War

The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal rights.

Slavery

The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.

The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott was a slave who sought citizenship through the American legal system, and whose case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. The famous Dred Scott Decision in 1857 denied his request stating that no person with African blood could become a U.S. citizen. Besides denying citizenship for African-Americans, it also overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted slavery in certain U.S. territories.

States’ Rights

States’ Rights refers To the struggle between the federal government and individual states over political power. In the Civil War era, this struggle focused heavily on the institution of slavery and whether the federal government had the right to regulate or even abolish slavery within an individual state. The sides of this debate were largely drawn between northern and southern states, thus widened the growing divide within the nation.

Abolitionist Movement

By the early 1830s, those who wished to see that institution abolished within the United States were becoming more strident and influential. They claimed obedience to “higher law” over obedience to the Constitution’s guarantee that a fugitive from one state would be considered a fugitive in all states. The fugitive slave act along with the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped expand the support for abolishing slavery nationwide.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabins was published in serial form in an anti-slavery newspaper in 1851 and in book format in 1852. Within two years it was a nationwide and worldwide bestseller. Depicting the evils of slavery, it offered a vision of slavery that few in the nation had seen before. The book succeeded at its goal, which was to start a wave of anti-slavery sentiment across the nation. Upon meeting Stowe, President Lincoln remarked, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”

The Underground Railroad

Some abolitionists actively helped runaway slaves to escape via “the Underground Railroad,” and there were instances in which men, even lawmen, sent to retrieve runaways were attacked and beaten by abolitionist mobs. To the slave holding states, this meant Northerners wanted to choose which parts of the Constitution they would enforce, while expecting the South to honor the entire document. The most famous activist of the underground railroad was Harriet Tubman, a nurse and spy in the Civil War and known as the Moses of her people.

The Missouri Compromise

Additional territories gained from the U.S.–Mexican War of 1846–1848 heightened the slavery debate. Abolitionists fought to have slavery declared illegal in those territories, as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had done in the territory that became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Advocates of slavery feared that if the institution were prohibited in any states carved out of the new territories the political power of slaveholding states would be diminished, possibly to the point of slavery being outlawed everywhere within the United States. Pro- and anti-slavery groups rushed to populate the new territories.

John Brown

In Kansas, particularly, violent clashes between proponents of the two ideologies occurred. One abolitionist in particular became famous—or infamous, depending on the point of view—for battles that caused the deaths of pro-slavery settlers in Kansas. His name was John Brown. Ultimately, he left Kansas to carry his fight closer to the bosom of slavery.

The Raid On Harper’s Ferry

On the night of October 16, 1859, Brown and a band of followers seized the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in what is believed to have been an attempt to arm a slave insurrection. (Brown denied this at his trial, but evidence indicated otherwise.) They were dislodged by a force of U.S. Marines led by Army lieutenant colonel Robert E. Lee.

Brown was swiftly tried for treason against Virginia and hanged. Southern reaction initially was that his acts were those of a mad fanatic, of little consequence. But when Northern abolitionists made a martyr of him, Southerners came to believe this was proof the North intended to wage a war of extermination against white Southerners. Brown’s raid thus became a step on the road to war between the sections.

The Election Of Abraham Lincoln

Exacerbating tensions, the old Whig political party was dying. Many of its followers joined with members of the American Party (Know-Nothings) and others who opposed slavery to form a new political entity in the 1850s, the Republican Party. When the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the 1859 presidential election, Southern fears that the Republicans would abolish slavery reached a new peak. Lincoln was an avowed opponent of the expansion of slavery but said he would not interfere with it where it existed.

Southern Secession

That was not enough to calm the fears of delegates to an 1860 secession convention in South Carolina. To the surprise of other Southern states—and even to many South Carolinians—the convention voted to dissolve the state’s contract with the United States and strike off on its own.

South Carolina had threatened this before in the 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, over a tariff that benefited Northern manufacturers but increased the cost of goods in the South. Jackson had vowed to send an army to force the state to stay in the Union, and Congress authorized him to raise such an army (all Southern senators walked out in protest before the vote was taken), but a compromise prevented the confrontation from occurring.

Perhaps learning from that experience the danger of going it alone, in 1860 and early 1861 South Carolina sent emissaries to other slave holding states urging their legislatures to follow its lead, nullify their contract with the United States and form a new Southern Confederacy. Six more states heeded the siren call: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Others voted down secession—temporarily.

Fort Sumter

On April 10, 1861, knowing that resupplies were on their way from the North to the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, provisional Confederate forces in Charleston demanded the fort’s surrender. The fort’s commander, Major Robert Anderson, refused. On April 12, the Confederates opened fire with cannons. At 2:30 p.m. the following day, Major Anderson surrendered.

War had begun. Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, refusing to fight against other Southern states and feeling that Lincoln had exceeded his presidential authority, reversed themselves and voted in favor of session. The last one, Tennessee, did not depart until June 8, nearly a week after the first land battle had been fought at Philippi in Western Virginia. (The western section of Virginia rejected the session vote and broke away, ultimately forming a new, Union-loyal state, West Virginia. Other mountainous regions of the South, such as East Tennessee, also favored such a course but were too far from the support of Federal forces to attempt it.) Learn more about the battle of Fort Sumter


 

Apr 262013
 

IRS to increase “pre-crime” enforcement

by Simon Black on April 12, 2011

April 12, 2011
Vina del Mar, Chile

Did you ever see Minority Report? It’s one of Steven Spielberg’s often forgotten about movies based on the short story by Philip K. Dick. In the movie, pre-couch Tom Cruise plays a police officer in the year 2054 who works for the highly specialized ‘pre-crime’ division.

Using a bizarre array of technology and metaphysics, the pre-crime division sees into the future and stops criminals in their tracks, arresting them before they commit a crime… sometimes before they even think about committing a crime.

minority report ui IRS to increase pre crime enforcement

This very elaborate and morally ambiguous law enforcement system is predicated on the government determining what your actions and intentions will be, often before you do. It’s not all science fiction.

A number of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. are seeking to step up the Internal Revenue Service’s powers, and technology, to essentially audit taxpayers before returns are even filed.

In remarks to the National Press Club last week, an IRS spokesman unveiled the agency’s vision for the “look forward” model in which most of the pertinent reporting information for the average taxpayer (W2, 1099, mortgage interest etc.) would be submitted to the IRS well in advance of the individual deadline.

After a massive upgrade in technology, the IRS would be able to pre-calculate what it expects to receive in taxes and instantly reject any return that doesn’t comply with its determination.

This may work fine and well for some wage earners… but start throwing in a few investment accounts, small business income, private partnerships, etc. and things can quickly diverge from the IRS estimates.

Imagine you start a new business on the side of your usual employment this year and take an initial loss due to ancillary startup costs. This wouldn’t factor into the machine’s pre-calculations of your tax liability, so you would be immediately rejected and flagged for additional scrutiny.

Makes you want to run out and start a business, or invest your capital in someone else’s, right? Not exactly.

Deep down, I think these people simply want to try and make things more efficient. Pre-crime is not the way to go. There are a number of countries that have incredibly successful tax codes, and there are common themes in all of them:

1) Keep it short. The Baltic countries are a great example of this– the entire Estonian tax code is about 70 pages, roughly 1/1000th the size of the US tax code (which is still prone to so much interpretation). It takes about 15 minutes to fill out an Estonian return, and you can do it online. In the Maldives, it’s even easier.

2) Keep it simple. When you have a tax code that’s so complex it has given rise to a multi-billion dollar preparation industry, you have a problem. There are dozens of different forms at the IRS, and over 20 versions for the 1099 alone! This is a system that is prone to massive flaws and a great deal of contradiction.

Hong Kong is a great example of a simple system. Taxes are levied at a flat rate of 15% based on the “territorial principal” that only income derived from Hong Kong is taxed. There is no capital gains tax, no VAT, no estate tax, etc. And yet, the biggest problem the Hong Kong government faces regarding taxes is how to give away their massive surplus.

3) Keep it low. When you make it easy and painless for people to pay taxes, it removes most of the incentives for them to cheat. In Singapore, tax rates are among the lowest in the world with a maximum rate of 20%. The capital gains rate is zero. The corporate rate varies from 0% to 17% (and keeps falling).

Under these circumstances, why cheat? By keeping rates low, the government is removing any incentive to engage in complicated (and costly) tax avoidance techniques. From a cost/benefit perspective, it’s much easier to comply when rates are low.

4) Keep it friendly. Creating an adversarial relationship with taxpayers doesn’t do anyone any favors. One of the key themes of the world’s most successful tax regimes is that they do not operate like a police agency that’s out to get people. This is a massive hurdle for the IRS to overcome.

Perhaps the polar opposite of this is Switzerland, where tax evasion is considered a civil matter, not a criminal matter. In Switzerland, the local cantonal tax authorities actually compete with each other for your business, rather than sticking you up for cash under penalty of imprisonment.

The US government is now searching for answers. Behind close doors, politicians are likely admitting to each other that the kitty is empty and they’re completely bankrupt. They don’t have to look far for solutions– the best models in the world are already in practice and have been successfully implemented.

Rather than making things easier, less painful, friendlier, and simpler, the US government seems to be taking the opposite approach– hiring more agents to sniff out ‘suspicious’ activity (defined in their sole discretion), raising taxes, and relying on fear and intimidation.

I suspect this path will have the opposite effect– instead of raising more money for a bankrupt government, it will continue to chase out productive people. More on that in a future letter.

Apr 112013
 

(NaturalNews) There’s a bigger agenda happening with bitcoin that needs to be publicly stated, and this goes far beyond the issue of the financial harm that will be caused when the bitcoin bubble finally implodes.

Central banks hate bitcoin. They hate it because it doesn’t allow them to loot bank accounts (Cyprus) and control the movement of capital around the globe. Bitcoin, in fact, threatens the very foundation of monetary control that underlies all the corrupt governments of the world. As such, bitcoin is a huge threat to the status quo, making it an obvious target for the globalists to attempt to destroy.

Discrediting bitcoin isn’t enough, however. To really be effective, they need to make bitcoin illegal.

The plot to criminalize bitcoin

How do you criminalize bitcoin? The same way you get guns banned: Plan an attack, make sure lots of people get hurt, roll out all the victims in front of the cameras, then use the sob stories as moral justification to crack down with oppressive new laws.

This is the agenda being planned right now with bitcoin. The recipe works like this:

Step 1) Central banks buy up massive quantities of bitcoin currency, driving the prices into the stratosphere and encouraging millions of people around the world to jump on board the “get rich” bandwagon.

Step 2) Once bitcoin valuations reach a sufficient level of insanity, start a massive selloff by dumping the bitcoins you already bought onto the market, offering them for sale at any price (i.e. sell into falling prices, accelerating the loss in valuations).

Step 3) Watch panic take hold as the bitcoin crash accelerates, ending in a catastrophic wipeout of “valuation” of all bitcoins.

Step 4) Find “victims” of the bitcoin crash who can tell a good sob story for the mainstream media about how they invested little Johnny’s college money in bitcoin and lost it all. Roll them out on CNN and MSNBC where they cry on camera and talk about how they were ripped off by bitcoin and now they only trust the government from now on.

Step 5) Demonize bitcoin by characterizing it as a “libertarian pyramid scheme.” Lash out against both decentralized currencies and libertarians.

Step 6) Once the demonization gains traction, have traitors in the U.S. Congress announce a “Consumer Currency Protection Act” that outlaws non-central bank currencies such as bitcoin. It’s all “for your safety,” of course. Shut down all online bitcoin wallets and exchanges, calling them “criminal pyramid schemes” and arrest a few people using bitcoin to send a warning message to the rest.

Mission accomplished! You’ve now made bitcoin look like a “pyramid scheme,” you’ve scared the public into being wary of “anti-government currencies,” and you’ve criminalized their use by consumers.

That’s the goal the central banks are trying to achieve right now. It’s all be set in motion by the bitcoin bubble which will inevitably lead to a bitcoin crash.

Bitcoin is being manipulated as a pawn in the globalist scheme to destroy freedom

The bitcoin bubble is to currency freedom as the Sandy Hook shooting was to firearms freedom. In both cases, governments will use a crisis to destroy freedom while claiming to be “saving” the people.

The government WANTS bitcoin to be a disaster, and the mainstream media, which has so far refused to give bitcoin much attention, will leap all over the story like vultures once it crashes.

For the record, I’m a proponent of bitcoin and I want it to succeed in the long run, but the mania speculation happening with bitcoin right now is going to be disastrous for its reputation. It is the worst thing that could happen to bitcoin.

What we would prefer to see is a slow, steady rise that reflects stability with low volatility. Instead, we see extremely high volatility, wild price ranges, desperate purchasing patterns and even purchase queues at some exchanges where the demand for bitcoins is so high that it exceeds the limits of the services (such as Coinbase, where you now have to stand in line to buy bitcoins two days later at whatever “market” prices are offered that day).

Why the bitcoin craze is the modern-day equivalent of tulip bulb mania

Bitcoin has become a casino. It is almost a perfect reflection of the tulip bulb mania of 1637 in these two ways: 1) Most people buying bitcoins have no use for bitcoins (just like tulip bulbs), and 2) The rapid increase in bitcoin valuations cannot be substantiated in any way that reflects reality.

In other words, there is no fundamental reason why bitcoins should be 2000% more valuable today than four months ago. Nothing has changed other than the craze / mania of people buying in.

Mark my words: A bitcoin crash will occur, and a lot of people are going to be financially hurt by it. More and more, this bitcoin craze is looking like a “pump and dump” operation, where the only winners are those who are the first to sell.

When bitcoins were in the sub-$20 range, I was not concerned about any of this. I actually encouraged people to buy bitcoins and support the bitcoin movement. But alarm bells went off in my mind when it skyrocketed past $150 and headed to $200+ virtually overnight. These are not the signs of rational markets. These are warning signs of bad things yet to occur.

By the way, the simple way to prove to yourself that everything I’m saying here is true is to ask yourself this simple question: What do the people who are buying bitcoins plan to spend them on?

The answer is NOTHING! They don’t plan to spend bitcoins on anything. They have no use for bitcoins. Their only play (for 90+% of those buying them) is to buy low and sell high. That’s it! For them, bitcoin is nothing more than a speculative vehicle for gambling with some of their money.

Every speculative bubble market that goes up must come down. And it will usually come down at a multiple of the speed at which it went up.

The velocity of bitcoins is a huge red alert

Now, if most bitcoin buyers were actually using the currency on a day-to-day basis, purchasing things online, sending bitcoins to pay off debts, exchanging bitcoins for services, etc., then that would be different. The circulation of a currency is classically known as its velocity. The higher the velocity, the more frequently the currency is being routinely used for transactions.

But the velocity of bitcoins after the initial purchase is shockingly low. What this indicates is that people are buying lots of bitcoins but then sitting on them. Once bitcoins are purchased, in other words, they basically just sit around and aren’t used for any practical purpose.

Amazon.com, for example, doesn’t accept bitcoins. You can’t buy gas for your truck with bitcoins. You can’t shop with bitcoins at the local grocery store. Until bitcoins are more widely accepted and the velocity rises, there is no fundamental reason why their value should suddenly skyrocket.

Of course, those who are deep into bitcoins right now will call me a doom and gloomer. Sure, it’s okay for them to talk about how the dollar is going to crash, or how the Fed is a criminal operation, but the minute I start invoking mathematical reality with bitcoins, suddenly I become the bad guy.

Well, my answer to the critics is that I have more faith in the laws of mathematics than the self-deluded logic of people who own millions of dollars worth of bitcoins and who therefore have a strong self-interest in promoting the bitcoin mania.

They are blinded by their own positions in bitcoins and cannot see through the fog of self delusion. In contrast to that, I own only two bitcoins worth approximately $400 or so, meaning that I have no substantial position in bitcoins to speak of. Whether bitcoins go up or down does not impact me in any meaningful way. My sole motivation in writing this is to warn others away from the extreme risks that are now clearly associated with buying bitcoins at present-day prices.

There is nothing new under the sun

As always, there will be people (we call them “noobs” or “suckers”) who think they have stumbled upon the one exception in the universe to the laws of mathematics and that bitcoin somehow represents a galactic shortcut to universal wealth where everyone can become billionaires by trading each other electronic chunks of data with higher and higher numbers encoded in them. These people are fools, and history will prove them so.

After the bitcoin crash takes place, people will ask me, “Mike, how did you know bitcoin was going to crash when everybody else thought it was going to keep going up forever?” And my answer will be, “Because I believe that 2 + 2 = 4.”

If you understand mathematics, you know that the bitcoin bubble is doomed. Sell while you still can and be happy with the profits you’ve made so far. Importantly, remember that the only reason you can sell is because there’s a “greater fool” on the other side of that transaction who is buying your bitcoins.

The problem with all bubbles is that sooner or later the world runs out of greater fools.

Final notes: Why 95% have no clue what I’m writing about

Frustratingly, perhaps 95% of the people who will comment on this article in social media websites have no understanding of high-level mathematics, no understanding of economics, no understanding of free markets, no understanding of greed vs. fear psychology and no historical context through which they might understand what’s happening with bitcoin. Almost no one buying bitcoins has any clue what they are. They don’t even understand the meaning of the phrase “decentralized peer-to-peer crypto currency” and they have absolutely no working knowledge of public / private key cryptography. They have no idea what they are buying and they have no qualifications whatsoever to even discuss the topic.

This is a case where 95% of the people talking about bitcoin need to be told, simply, “Shut the hell up!” because they literally have no clue what they are talking about.

If you are going to talk about bitcoin, make sure you understand the fundamentals of mathematics, cryptography, free markets, economics and human psychology before opening your mouth. Otherwise, you are only announcing to the world that you’re a complete fool who will soon be parted from his money.

And to all those who think they are going to “get rich” by buying bitcoin today and selling it off when bitcoin goes higher, let me offer you a piece of practical advice: After the bitcoin crash, when you are screaming bloody murder and selling your bitcoins at perhaps 1% of what you paid for them, it will be people like me who will buy them and thus receive a 99% discount on the bitcoins you once bought at a hundred times the price. That discount is called the “IQ discount.”

You know how lotteries are called a “tax on people who can’t do math?” The bitcoin crash will be a massive global wealth transfer from people who can’t understand the dynamics of decentralized crypto-currencies to those who do understand.

If you don’t follow what I’m saying here, then don’t buy bitcoins. You will only be led to the mathematical slaughter.

 

Apr 072013
 

Bitcoin Really Is an Existential Threat to the Modern Liberal State

By Evan Soltas Apr 5, 2013 1:43 PM MT

So far, Bitcoin is not a big deal. Its total value in circulation was $1.4 billion as of this week. That’s equivalent to the currency stock of a small nation — somewhere between Iceland and Uruguay — and just one-thousandth of the total value of U.S. dollars in circulation. The volume of transactions in Bitcoin is growing only slowly, relative to the massive increase in demand for the currency: This discrepancy is strong evidence that Bitcoin’s rise is a speculative bubble.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin raises some interesting questions. One is whether it might undermine the modern state — which, for many of its libertarian-anarchist advocates, is the whole idea.

Technology enabled governments to grow more powerful and more centralized in the 19th and 20th centuries, as Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, has argued. The intriguing possibility is that technologies of the 21st century — such as Bitcoin — might push the other way.

Physical cash is used in a rapidly shrinking share of transactions: 27 percent in 2011, 23 percent by 2017, and so on, according to Javelin Strategy & Research, a financial-services research firm. The central banks of Sweden and Nigeria have both declared goals of a cashless economy. In Europe, the volume of non-cash transactions is forecasted to rise by 7 percent per year, despite economic stagnation.

What’s going on? First, a global shift to mobile payments and credit and debit cards. Second, a rise in online retail — one that could put 15 to 20 percent of all retail sales online in the U.S., U.K., China, and Europe, according to Bain & Company.

Electronic payments aren’t new. Bitcoin’s only innovations are its status as an independent currency and its decentralized network design. But those differences might make Bitcoin — or rather, crypto-currency in general — an existential threat to the modern liberal state. If widely adopted, crypto-currencies would cripple government in three central functions: taxation, police and macroeconomic stabilization. That is exactly what Bitcoin’s biggest fans are hoping.

  1. Taxation: How do governments collect taxes on transactions in Bitcoin? The answer is they don’t, and they can’t. Crypto-currency’s strong protections on anonymity make it impossible for any state to know who is buying what, who is paying whom, who earns what, and who has what in savings. That poses a direct challenge to the power of states to levy taxes.

    The problem is that Bitcoin makes tax evasion easier. States could enforce reporting of Bitcoin income for individuals and businesses, as they try to do for cash, which is also hard to track. But encryption and the peer-to-peer network structure make Bitcoin even harder to follow than physical cash, and digital cash is much better than the physical kind for storage and transactions, so the scale of the challenge could end up being much bigger.

  2. Police:It would be almost impossible for states to detect certain crimes. One of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin — though, of course, one can never truly know — is buying illicit drugs. Bitcoin’s cryptography makes it uniquely able to facilitate money laundering, insider trading, fraud, and bribery. The transactions would be untraceable, and the money doesn’t ever have to return to the bank, where the financial crime might have been detected.
  3. Macroeconomic policy:A Bitcoin economy would undermine the power of real-world central banks to make monetary policy. Yes, governments can influence the demand for national currencies by requiring taxes to be paid in them. But the monetary lever on private transactions and lending would be gone if such commerce was denominated in Bitcoin. And by displacing governments as currency issuers, Bitcoin also threatens their ability to finance public debt. In a world where many transactions are anonymous, it’s unclear how governments could even compile accurate economic data, without which macroeconomic policy is impossible. Economic depression in a Bitcoin regime could be an insoluble problem.

If Bitcoin remains on the fringes, then the state is safe. The question is, if it shows signs of becoming a widely used currency, what could governments do to crush it?

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the wing of the U.S. Treasury Department that investigates money laundering, said last month that it has the authority to regulate transactions involving both Bitcoin and U.S. dollars under the Bank Secrecy Act. These inter-currency exchanges appear to be the best foothold for regulation. Governments could require records of all purchases and sales of Bitcoin, for instance.

But this approach has severe limits. There are, by design, no direct avenues for government to interpose itself in Bitcoin-only transactions. Government does have some enforcement leverage over the individuals and businesses. Bitcoin transactions have a real-world side. The problem, though, is that the usual mechanisms for detection and enforcement are very weak against Bitcoin. Ask the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Bitcoin presents “distinct challenges for deterring illicit activity,” according to a leaked intelligence assessment that was prepared in April 2012. “Bitcoin is unique because it is the only decentralized, P2P network-based virtual currency,” the FBI’s Cyber Intelligence and Criminal Intelligence Sections wrote. “The way it creates, operates, and distributes bitcoins makes it distinctively susceptible to illicit money transfers.”

Bitcoin may be a bubble that will burst. If it does, other forms of digital cash will come along. The state was intimately involved in the development of money — but that was before networked computers. In the next chapter of the history of currency, money might very well turn on its creator, and roll back government.

(Evan Soltas is a contributor to the Ticker. Follow him on Twitter.)

BitCoins: Gateway to Doom and Freedom

 

BitCoins: Gateway to Doom and Freedom!

Free at Last!

Make no mistake. Thanks to BitCoins, the status quo is doomed and a new age of freedom is at hand. The tiny elite group of people who run the world today don’t know it yet, but their power is finally at an end. They are like zombies – the walking dead.

For thousands of years the world has been dominated by the power ethic – the notion that might makes right. And for thousands of years those with wealth and power have succeeded in enslaving the rest of humanity – first by brute force and subsequently by taxation and regulation – with our unwitting consent. As of today, it is reported that only three countries in the world do not have central banks controlling their governments: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Is that any surprise? Those countries have their own forms of enslavement.

In my previous article, I pointed out that in a BitCoin enhanced world:

  • You can buy or sell whatever you wish – with no government imposed prohibitions, no sales tax, and no effective financial surveillance of your transactions.
  • You can make a living in your chosen field and not pay an income tax.
  • The buying power of your income will more than double, and a single earner will again be able to support a family and look forward to a real retirement.
  • You will no longer be subject to any kind of licensing – no driver’s license, no professional license, no building permits, no vehicle registration, no insurance requirements, no fishing license – none of that nonsense.
  • You can own property without paying a property tax.
  • You can travel freely anywhere in the world without having to deal with the TSA, customs and immigration, border patrols, or passports.
  • Protection against dishonest unscrupulous business-people will come from reporting businesses like Angie’s List and Consumer Reports – the perpetrators will be shunned and quickly go out of business.
  • Instead of working in a bureaucratic hierarchy, most will choose to work in a trusted Octologue, where everyone has an equal voice and where work usually feels like play. Creativity will flourish.
  • In this environment you’ll feel that you belong – that you are no longer isolated and alienated from those around you. The world will feel like home, at last.

The price of all this freedom will be the necessity of learning to be personally responsible for yourself and your family. There will be no “nanny state” to take care of you and tell you how to live your life – but you’ll learn not to need the state – and be better off for it.

A Difficult Transition

In the movie, The Matrix, the character Morpheus says (paraphrasing), “To get through the difficult time ahead, we must first shed our fear of it!” And this is what we face today. Many of us fear the uncertainty of the future – especially knowing that the governments of the world, and the central banks that own them, will not give up their power over us without a fight. In the past century governments are estimated to have slaughtered at least 100,000,000 of their own peopleand some estimates run as high as 300,000,000. So why would we expect the elite to hesitate to act similarly today?

To shed our fear of the future – to embrace the possibilities that the future offers, we need to anticipate the likely response of government to the advent of the BitCoin. To that end I am predicting the following steps that governments will take to maintain their power over us by controlling our money:

  • The only parts of the BitCoin system that are vulnerable to government attack are the web-based “exchanges” that facilitate the buying and selling of BitCoins online. To mount this attack the US government is already creating rules that will require BitCoin exchanges to implement the same kind of “know your customers” and “report their transactions” rules that currently apply to commercial banks and money transmitters, like Western Union – thus enabling the government to tax and confiscate BitCoins the way they do dollars. There are, however three reasons why such attacks will fail:
    • BitCoins are inherently anonymous. No one knows who owns them and no government edict can force their owners and users to reveal their identities. So BitCoin exchanges that require their customers to reveal their identity will be shunned by the BitCoin community.Our government is much more dangerous than all the terrorists, money launderers, dope peddlers, porn traffickers, and gun runners combined. I suggest we shun the exchanges that allow them to be “regulated” and support the ones that locate in hospitable offshore jurisdictions or who go underground like the Silk Road.
    • The second reason such attacks on exchanges will fail is because the creation of an exchange is fairly easy to do – and people around the world will be happy to set up new exchanges faster than governments can shut them down.
    • And the third reason attacks on exchanges will fail to destroy the BitCoin economy is that exchanges, while convenient, are not necessary for the success of the BitCoin system. There will always be individual traders around who will buy and sell BitCoins in exchange for the local currency. Let’s support our local BitCoin traders.
    • When attacking the exchanges fails to implode the BitCoin economy, the government’s next step will be to outlaw or prohibit the ownership, possession, and use of BitCoins. Remember what they did to Bernard von Nothaus, creator of the Liberty Dollar. He is awaiting sentencing for his conviction on counterfeiting charges – but his real crime wasn’t counterfeiting at all. It was creating a currency that was much better than our phony-bologna Federal Reserve notes – now that’s real counterfeiting!When this stage is reached, the use of BitCoins will be depicted by law enforcement agencies and the mass media as money laundering and the support of terrorism. So it could actually get quite dangerous to be caught having or using BitCoins. Fortunately, the tools exist today that make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for such agencies to make a case against the individual users or dealers of BitCoins – or even to discover who they are.
    • A more insidious attack will come from our government’s “Cyber-security” forces that are already being marshaled to go after any online activity deemed a threat to the status quo. They will, no doubt, invent computer viruses, Trojan viruses, and various other forms of “malware” that will search out, report, and destroy BitCoins wherever they are stored – unless we take certain precautions against that eventuality.Fortunately, the precautions are available now – so it behooves us to implement them as soon as we acquire any BitCoins, because the government won’t announce the mounting of such cyber-weapons – they’ll just start using them as they become available.
    • And finally, if the patterns observed in previous police states are followed, the mere discussion of BitCoins will be prohibited – let alone their advocacy. Free speech be damned – articles such as this one will be cited as evidence of treason, terrorism, sedition, and/or conspiracy. The First Amendment is dead – long live the First Amendment.

 

Live Free
Cronus

Mar 052013
 

Contact the members of the Arizona Financial Institutions Committee TODAY.

Ask them to pass SB1439, the sound money bill.

The bill has passed the Senate and needs to get out of committee in the House so it can be voted on by the entire House
It will install constitutional money as a choice for AZ citizens to voluntarily use along-side of, or instead of, the failing Federal Reserve Note (FRN).

Aim your calls and emails for SB1439 at the committee members listed below.  Politely but firmly tell them it is a dire necessity that we be prepared against this FRN devaluation of buying power with the Founding Fathers’ constitutional system mentioned in Art. 1, Sec. 10, Clause 1 (“No state shall…make anything except gold and silver coin a tender in  payment of debts…”)
Thanks for your love of the Constitution!

2013 ROSTER ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPS. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE ON SB1439 (GOLD/ SILVER AS AZ. LEGAL TENDER)

SB1439 Legal Tender Act http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/sb1439p.pdf

The Constitution for the united States is clear:
“N
o State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Dear Senator or Representative

Obey the constitution and restore financial soundness by passing SB1439 Legal Tender Act to our country and State and end the roller coaster ride that everyone has been enduring, which has resulted in the loss of homes and wealth by many, by supporting this bill. This will allow many to voluntarily get off the roller coaster by trading using sound money rather than using the private bankrupted fiat Federal Reserve Note, that is no longer redeemable for anything valuable and has already lost 97% of its value. I implore you to move this bill out of committee for a vote on the floor of Arizona house of representatives

Sincerely,

 

SB 1439
– 1 -Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
1 Section 1. Title 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
2 chapter 7, to read:
3 CHAPTER 7
4 LEGAL TENDER
5 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
6 1-701. Definition of specie legal tender
7 IN THE STATUTES AND LAWS OF THIS STATE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE
8 REQUIRES:
9 1. “LEGAL TENDER” MEANS AN AUTHORIZED MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE FOR THE
10 PAYMENT OF DEBTS AND TAXES.
11 2. “SPECIE” MEANS COIN OR BULLION HAVING GOLD OR SILVER CONTENT.
12 1-702. Legal tender recognition; use of specie
 13 A. LEGAL TENDER IN THIS STATE CONSISTS OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
14 1. LEGAL TENDER AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.
15 2. SPECIE COIN ISSUED AT ANY TIME BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
16 3. ANY OTHER SPECIE THAT A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION RULES BY A
17 FINAL, UNAPPEALABLE ORDER TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A
18 LEGAL TENDER.
19 B. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY CONTRACT, A PERSON MAY NOT COMPEL
20 ANY OTHER PERSON TO TENDER OR ACCEPT SPECIE LEGAL TENDER.
21 1-703. Legal tender exchanges; payment of taxes
22 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE EXCHANGE OF ONE FORM OF LEGAL
23 TENDER FOR ANOTHER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY FOR ANY TYPE OF TAX.
24 B. ANY TAX THAT IS DUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A TRANSACTION THAT INVOLVES
25 SPECIE LEGAL TENDER SHALL BE PAID PROPORTIONATELY IN THE SAME LEGAL TENDER.
26 C. LEGAL TENDER IS MONEY AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION OR REGULATION
27 AS PROPERTY OTHER THAN MONEY.
28 1-704. Enforcement
29 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL ENFORCE THIS CHAPTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN
30 INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT OF JUDICIAL ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.

Arizona, after Utah, may recognize gold and silver as legal tender authorized for payments of debts and taxes.

The Arizona Senate voted Thursday to approve SB 1439, the Constitutional Tender Act, which allows businesses and the state government to accept payments in gold or silver. The vote was 17-11. (see how reps voted here)

The Legal Tender bill specifies that legal tender in Arizona consists of all of the following:

1. Legal Tender authorized by Congress.

2. Specie (containing gold or silver) coin issued at any time by the U.S. government.

3. Any other specie that a court of competent jurisdiction rules by a final, unappealable order to be within the scope of state authority to make legal tender.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Currently all debts and taxes in Arizona and the rest of the United States are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury — very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” The Constitutional tender act is a big step towards that constitutional requirement which has been ignored for a long time in every state of the country. Such a tactic would achieve the desired goal of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the State and local level.

Passage of the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes. Professor William Greene explains further:

“Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State – as people in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

Without a single act of Congress, the Federal Reserve system can be brought to its knees by passing such bills in states all over the country.

ACTION ITEMS for Arizona

1. Contact state representative. Strongly, but politely, let them know you want them to vote YES on SB1439. Remind them that you expect them to support the Constitution, and that includes Article 1, Section 10 which says that the state needs to allow gold and silver to be used as legal tender. SB1439 will help facilitate this constitutional duty and you want a YES vote.

BORG

 

THE BORG,

B.O.R.G. is an acronym.

The BORG stand for the three institutions that are usually expected to solve humanity’s societal problems:

Banks

and Big Business big enough to influence legislation,

Organized

Religion

and

Government

Banks, Organized Religion, Government is the BORG.

The BORG is a PARASITE and like all parasites it is destined to eventually destroy the host. Who is the host… We are!  There has never been a societal problem that the BORG actually solved.  Yet most of us keep expecting these institutions to improve our lives. This is unrealistic, as these institutions consistently make unethical decisions.  Many of these unethical decisions are done to perpetuate the existence of the organization in the first place.

For example: the government, which has a monopoly on force, granted a monopoly on the creation of money to a private corporation known as the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve.  The Federal Reserve has the ability to create money out of nothing grants the those who create the “money” almost UNLIMITED POWER to psychopaths who are addicted to power!  People addicted to power, will do anything to preserve their power.  The list includes War, Taxation and the Patriot act to name a just a few.  As you continue to read the content of this website, this will become more clear to you.

The BORG is the root cause of the most serious problems that humanity faces. It perpetuates these problems by perpetuating the mechanism that keeps humanity in the dark. This mechanism is called: the MATRIX or the Comforting Lies.