Philip Berg vs. Barack Obama, et al.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
http://comments.blogware.com/U_20S_20Supreme_20Court_20Writ_20of_20Certiorari10_30_08.pdf
According to the US Constitution Article II Section 1, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."
Philip Berg states in his Writ of Certiorari, "Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Obama’s biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States Citizen. The laws on the books at the time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. Citizen to have resided in the Untied States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya."
Furthermore, Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, became a natural citizen of Indonesia when adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Since "Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, neither did the United States, and since Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930." "For these reasons, Obama, his parents and/or his guardian would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien."
Folks, this is not a joke. If the Supreme Court does not step in and resolve this issue, we are facing a Constitutional Crisis the likes of which this nation has never seen. The Supreme Court has given Barack Obama until December 1st to answer these claims.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Quick tutorial on Funny Money, or, Why a Bailout Won’t Work
Way back before there was paper money, people traded with whatever was available that others wanted. Barter was fair, but inconvenient. Soon people realized that gold and silver were easily identifiable, easily divided, and accepted everywhere. So gold and silver became the standard for trade.
The village goldsmith, due to the nature of his job, had a vault to deter thievery. Being a shrewd businessman, he realized that people would pay him to store their excess gold. It wasn't long before people were trading their gold receipts instead of actual gold, due to convenience.
Enter: Fraud. At some point, the goldsmith realized that people weren't redeeming their gold receipts very often, and that even if some of the receipts were being redeemed, there were others bringing in their gold for storage at the same time, so the number of receipts out in circulation was fairly constant. What the goldsmith discovered was that he could write up a few "extra" gold receipts and spend them out in the marketplace, and no one would ever be the wiser. What he also discovered was that he could write up a few "extra" receipts to loan to people, and receive interest on those loans. This is what you and I know as banking, and it is conceived in greed, and born in fraud.
For a while this arrangement would work well, both for the goldsmith and for the village. Over time the money supply (circulating gold receipts) would grow, loans would be available, and the economy would boom. There was plenty of money and people felt rich. But there was a drawback... If the growth of the money supply outstripped the growth of goods and services available in the economy, inflation would result. It would take more and more gold receipts to buy your groceries, to pay your employees, or whatever. At some point, people would get wise to the game, and realize that there wasn't enough gold in the goldsmith's vault to cover the redemption of all the receipts. And so there would be a run on the bank, and the goldsmith would be run out of town.
Eventually the bankers, for bankers they now were, got the stamp of governmental approval on their fraud. The governments discovered they could get a piece of the action by borrowing from the bankers for their projects. Governments find that the people revolt if the taxation is too heavy, but no one complains if they just borrow the money, until it is too late.
During the 1800s bankers were free to perpetuate their fraud issuing their own notes, but people got tired of the boom/bust cycles, so in 1913 the government stepped in and commissioned a lender of last resort, the Federal Reserve Bank, which could create money to lend to banks to promote liquidity in the system. The government forbad banks to issue their own notes, and required the bankers to keep at least a certain fraction of United States Notes on hand, for people who wanted to withdraw from their account. They had to keep a "fractional reserve". At that time the notes were still redeemable for gold.
By 1933 having to redeem United States Notes at $20.67 / ounce of gold had become odious to the government, so President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order stating that everyone had to turn in their gold. They received for it $20.67 in United States Notes. Once all the gold was in, the government devalued the currency by making it redeemable for gold at the rate of $33 / ounce of gold. But that redemption was possible only if you were a foreign government. This rate held steady until 1971, the year Nixon "closed the gold window." From that time on Federal Reserve Notes (no longer US Notes) were not redeemable for anything by anyone. Their value has been predicated solely on people’s belief that they are worth something. And for that belief to remain in place the Federal Reserve Notes must remain relatively scarce.
This is why bailouts won't work. For the government to commit $700 billion for a bailout requires it to either tax $700,000,000,000 from the people, borrow $700,000,000,000 from the people and or foreign governments, or to simply create it out of thin air. Taxing won't work, because at this point any increase in the rate of taxation will kill the economy and cause tax receipts to fall. Borrowing the money from people or governments will require an increase in the interest rate to get people to tolerate the risk and pony up the money. It will also redirect money that would otherwise have been invested in other projects, thus slowing the economy. This leaves creating it out of thin air, also known as having the Federal Reserve Bank buy T-bills. When the Fed buys T-bills, it creates the money to buy them by adding dollar amounts to accounts. Of course, they charge us interest on this newly created funny money. (Remember the goldsmith?)
With all this NEW money in circulation, all the old money is devalued and at some point people catch on to the fact that there is way too much money in circulation, all chasing after the same amount of goods and services. The Fed was *supposed* to make sure the growth of the money supply didn't outstrip the growth of the economy, but the drunken sailors in congress made sure that was an impossible task, by borrowing wildly. Congress borrowing to spend directly causes an increase in the money supply.
At this point you're probably asking, "Well if we've borrowed $10 trillion since the 1970s, where's the inflation?" Good question. Here's the answer: The excess currency has been gobbled up by foreign countries that need to hold US dollars in order to buy oil on the world market. This is why it is IMPERATIVE for the US economy that oil not be traded in anything but dollars. The day China can buy oil in Yuan or Euros is the day that they (and every other country) send their jillions of dollars home to the US, and the day we see hyper-inflation and the end of the dollar. And, of course, that day is only held back by people's trust that the US dollar will retain its value.
So there is the rub: The more wildly the world sees us spend and borrow and devalue our currency, the more likely they are to decide it's not trustworthy, and dump it. That is why a bailout is like a game of Russian roulette… except that at this point there’s likely a bullet in every cylinder.
The village goldsmith, due to the nature of his job, had a vault to deter thievery. Being a shrewd businessman, he realized that people would pay him to store their excess gold. It wasn't long before people were trading their gold receipts instead of actual gold, due to convenience.
Enter: Fraud. At some point, the goldsmith realized that people weren't redeeming their gold receipts very often, and that even if some of the receipts were being redeemed, there were others bringing in their gold for storage at the same time, so the number of receipts out in circulation was fairly constant. What the goldsmith discovered was that he could write up a few "extra" gold receipts and spend them out in the marketplace, and no one would ever be the wiser. What he also discovered was that he could write up a few "extra" receipts to loan to people, and receive interest on those loans. This is what you and I know as banking, and it is conceived in greed, and born in fraud.
For a while this arrangement would work well, both for the goldsmith and for the village. Over time the money supply (circulating gold receipts) would grow, loans would be available, and the economy would boom. There was plenty of money and people felt rich. But there was a drawback... If the growth of the money supply outstripped the growth of goods and services available in the economy, inflation would result. It would take more and more gold receipts to buy your groceries, to pay your employees, or whatever. At some point, people would get wise to the game, and realize that there wasn't enough gold in the goldsmith's vault to cover the redemption of all the receipts. And so there would be a run on the bank, and the goldsmith would be run out of town.
Eventually the bankers, for bankers they now were, got the stamp of governmental approval on their fraud. The governments discovered they could get a piece of the action by borrowing from the bankers for their projects. Governments find that the people revolt if the taxation is too heavy, but no one complains if they just borrow the money, until it is too late.
During the 1800s bankers were free to perpetuate their fraud issuing their own notes, but people got tired of the boom/bust cycles, so in 1913 the government stepped in and commissioned a lender of last resort, the Federal Reserve Bank, which could create money to lend to banks to promote liquidity in the system. The government forbad banks to issue their own notes, and required the bankers to keep at least a certain fraction of United States Notes on hand, for people who wanted to withdraw from their account. They had to keep a "fractional reserve". At that time the notes were still redeemable for gold.
By 1933 having to redeem United States Notes at $20.67 / ounce of gold had become odious to the government, so President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order stating that everyone had to turn in their gold. They received for it $20.67 in United States Notes. Once all the gold was in, the government devalued the currency by making it redeemable for gold at the rate of $33 / ounce of gold. But that redemption was possible only if you were a foreign government. This rate held steady until 1971, the year Nixon "closed the gold window." From that time on Federal Reserve Notes (no longer US Notes) were not redeemable for anything by anyone. Their value has been predicated solely on people’s belief that they are worth something. And for that belief to remain in place the Federal Reserve Notes must remain relatively scarce.
This is why bailouts won't work. For the government to commit $700 billion for a bailout requires it to either tax $700,000,000,000 from the people, borrow $700,000,000,000 from the people and or foreign governments, or to simply create it out of thin air. Taxing won't work, because at this point any increase in the rate of taxation will kill the economy and cause tax receipts to fall. Borrowing the money from people or governments will require an increase in the interest rate to get people to tolerate the risk and pony up the money. It will also redirect money that would otherwise have been invested in other projects, thus slowing the economy. This leaves creating it out of thin air, also known as having the Federal Reserve Bank buy T-bills. When the Fed buys T-bills, it creates the money to buy them by adding dollar amounts to accounts. Of course, they charge us interest on this newly created funny money. (Remember the goldsmith?)
With all this NEW money in circulation, all the old money is devalued and at some point people catch on to the fact that there is way too much money in circulation, all chasing after the same amount of goods and services. The Fed was *supposed* to make sure the growth of the money supply didn't outstrip the growth of the economy, but the drunken sailors in congress made sure that was an impossible task, by borrowing wildly. Congress borrowing to spend directly causes an increase in the money supply.
At this point you're probably asking, "Well if we've borrowed $10 trillion since the 1970s, where's the inflation?" Good question. Here's the answer: The excess currency has been gobbled up by foreign countries that need to hold US dollars in order to buy oil on the world market. This is why it is IMPERATIVE for the US economy that oil not be traded in anything but dollars. The day China can buy oil in Yuan or Euros is the day that they (and every other country) send their jillions of dollars home to the US, and the day we see hyper-inflation and the end of the dollar. And, of course, that day is only held back by people's trust that the US dollar will retain its value.
So there is the rub: The more wildly the world sees us spend and borrow and devalue our currency, the more likely they are to decide it's not trustworthy, and dump it. That is why a bailout is like a game of Russian roulette… except that at this point there’s likely a bullet in every cylinder.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Propaganda Machine
To what do I refer, you ask? To none other than an expert in the field of propaganda, deception, and manipulation, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Let me explain.
Today Pelosi explicitly stated again, as others have before her, the true and ultimate goal of theDemocratic Socialist Party in America: the destruction of prosperity and implementation of a Marxist Communist state. This all in regards to the recent boondoggle at the capitol, where Pelosi is refusing to allow a vote on lifting domestic exploration/drilling bans. In an interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle, she says:
"You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources."
This literally smacks of Marxist ideals of nationalizing industry, creating common ownership of production. What Pelosi is suggesting when she uses the word royalties, is that ownership of the oil industry is already common, and that all Americans, through the state of course, deserve a piece of the pie. Royalties can be defined as:
"Remuneration paid to the owners of technology, patents, or trade names for the use of same."
Despite the obvious misnomer, Pelosi is re-appropriating the term purposefully. She is trying to get us to think of oil company profits as a concession byyou and I the government, the rightful owners. She is trying to imply that the government has the authority and moral right to sanctimoniously "allow" oil companies to keep a sliver of what they've earned.
She says it again in the same interview.
"Big Oil wants to drill and not pass their royalties to the taxpayer. They want us to subsidize the drilling."
The implication is unavoidable: that oil profits are commonly owned bythe people the government, and that we only allow oil companies to exploit those resources out of the goodness of our hearts. Pelosi also wants us to believe that the government is subsidizing oil companies? I don't think it's possible to imbue my words with as much incredulity as I feel. What subsidies can she possibly be referring to?
The nearest I can figure is that any profit the oil industry is allowed to keep (i.e disburse to their stockholders and reinvest in the business) after paying their absurdly high taxes, is referred to as a "subsidy". Perhaps we should start calling your take-home pay from your job, a "subsidy". Then we could all get bent out of shape that the government is giving subsidies to an evil and greedy person such as yourself.
This is ignoring the complete injustice of using the oil industry's hard-earned profit to (literally this time) subsidize its competitors, "renewable energy". Perhaps we should raise taxes on McDonald's and use those funds to subsidize Burger King. Does that sound just, or even economically sensical?
Apparently Pelosi "would consider a vote on drilling in the context of a fuller, more comprehensive energy package that would include ending some of the oil companies' current tax breaks."
Again, what tax breaks is Pelosi referring to? The taxes imposed on the oil industry are more than double what oil companies are making in profits. To bring this a little closer to home, it would be like a $4 box of breakfast cereal at the supermarket having an $8 sales tax associated with it. Should we feel outrage at Kellogg's for making $1, or the government for making $8?
Today Pelosi explicitly stated again, as others have before her, the true and ultimate goal of the
"You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources."
This literally smacks of Marxist ideals of nationalizing industry, creating common ownership of production. What Pelosi is suggesting when she uses the word royalties, is that ownership of the oil industry is already common, and that all Americans, through the state of course, deserve a piece of the pie. Royalties can be defined as:
"Remuneration paid to the owners of technology, patents, or trade names for the use of same."
Despite the obvious misnomer, Pelosi is re-appropriating the term purposefully. She is trying to get us to think of oil company profits as a concession by
She says it again in the same interview.
"Big Oil wants to drill and not pass their royalties to the taxpayer. They want us to subsidize the drilling."
The implication is unavoidable: that oil profits are commonly owned by
The nearest I can figure is that any profit the oil industry is allowed to keep (i.e disburse to their stockholders and reinvest in the business) after paying their absurdly high taxes, is referred to as a "subsidy". Perhaps we should start calling your take-home pay from your job, a "subsidy". Then we could all get bent out of shape that the government is giving subsidies to an evil and greedy person such as yourself.
This is ignoring the complete injustice of using the oil industry's hard-earned profit to (literally this time) subsidize its competitors, "renewable energy". Perhaps we should raise taxes on McDonald's and use those funds to subsidize Burger King. Does that sound just, or even economically sensical?
Apparently Pelosi "would consider a vote on drilling in the context of a fuller, more comprehensive energy package that would include ending some of the oil companies' current tax breaks."
Again, what tax breaks is Pelosi referring to? The taxes imposed on the oil industry are more than double what oil companies are making in profits. To bring this a little closer to home, it would be like a $4 box of breakfast cereal at the supermarket having an $8 sales tax associated with it. Should we feel outrage at Kellogg's for making $1, or the government for making $8?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)