The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the U.S. The Libertarian party is dedicated to strictly limited government, a pure free market economy, private property rights, civil liberties, personal freedoms with personal responsibilities, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade. Libertarians of South Central Kansas (LSOCK) are an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of Kansas (http://www.lpks.org/) We meet every Tuesday night (except holidays) from 5:30 to 7:00 pm at Cathy's Westway Cafe located at 1215 W. Pawnee (just west of Seneca Street) in Wichita, Kansas. All who support personal responsibility and individual liberty are invited to attend!
LPKS/LSOCK P.O. Box 2456 Wichita, Kansas 67201
1-800-335-1776

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Ballot Access!

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Will you donate to help fund ballot access petition drives in New Hampshire and South Dakota?

We're starting these petition drives for full party access early so we can get them out of the way efficiently before the frantic peak period in 2012. Most states don't allow us to start this early.

The Libertarian National Committee recently approved $28,000 for New Hampshire and $22,000 for South Dakota. Those state parties will kick in additional funds, and they will also have volunteers help collect signatures.

The Libertarian Party is famous for making it onto the ballot time and time again. Having candidates on the ballot is why we get so much publicity compared to other parties like the Green Party and Constitution Party.

Currently, the LP is qualified for the 2012 presidential ballot in 29 states, while the Green Party is on in 16 states, and the Constitution Party in 12 states.

Petitioning is hard work, but we have some great petitioners who collect signatures and also advertise our party as a result.

Please donate to support these petition drives.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Visualizing The U.S. Debt

You have to check this out to believe it!

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Do Not Raise The Debt Limit!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 27, 2011

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222


Libertarians say 'no' to raising debt limit

WASHINGTON - As Republicans and Democrats in Washington continue chewing the scenery in their 'Debt Limit Theater,' Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:

"Everything I've heard from Washington politicians about the debt limit is nonsense. I propose the simplest option: Do nothing. Don't raise the debt limit, period.

"None of the deals I've heard would do anything to cut federal spending. Some reduce the rate of growth a little bit, but I'm afraid that doesn't count.

"And of course, some of the proposals would increase taxes, which Libertarians are totally opposed to.

"The best outcome would be no deal at all. If the debt limit is not raised, then the federal government will have to cut its spending by over 40%. That would be the best outcome for the future of America, and it's certainly the preferred outcome for Libertarians. (It reminds me of the World's Smallest Political Quiz, produced by the Advocates for Self-Government, which includes the libertarian option to 'Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.')

"I'm actually shocked at how resistant both the Republicans and Democrats are to making cuts. I wasn't expecting much, but their proposals are downright embarrassing.

"For example, consider Speaker Boehner's plan. According to the Cato Institute, the Boehner plan doesn't cut spending. It just sets the spending increases slightly below the imaginary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 'baseline.'

"According to the CBO report released yesterday, the Boehner plan has practically no effect on the deficit in 2012, the only year that really matters. In fact, the Boehner plan actually increases Pell Grant spending by $4 billion in 2012. (So does the Reid plan in the Senate.)

"Of course, the Reid plan largely takes advantage of massive errors in the CBO baseline to claim 'cuts.' (For example, the CBO predicts absurdly high levels of spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

"As usual, Republicans and Democrats are trying to create the illusion of a high-stakes game between two vastly different visions. In fact, their visions are practically identical. I hope Americans will see through all the smoke, and consider the Libertarian option to make real reductions in the size and scope of government, across the board."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Monday, July 25, 2011

LP Monday Message

July 25, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Are you thinking about running for office in 2012?

I hope so. I also hope you will get involved with your local Libertarian Party affiliate right now so you will get to know other Libertarians in your area, and so that they can get to know you too.

Each year we have some people file to run for office as Libertarians who report they didn't get as much help from the party as they had hoped for. You are more likely to get support if you have already participated with the party.

Please visit this page for more information about running for office.

Then fill out this form.

In some cases we need volunteers to start up a local affiliate or to join an existing affiliate as an officer, board member, or to take on some other role such as newsletter editor. If you would like to help, please fill out our volunteer form here.

Then look for local activity by visiting your state party website here.

Information from the volunteer and candidate forms is immediately sent to our state party affiliates so they will become aware of your interest. If you do not hear back from your state affiliate within 48 hours, I recommend sending a note to Bob Johnston (Bob.Johnston@lp.org), our Candidate and Affiliate Support Specialist, for additional assistance.

You are much more likely to be taken seriously by the party if your membership is current and you have participated with your local affiliate.

Please join the Libertarian Party and become a dues-paying member. If your membership has expired, please renew today. (If you're not sure whether your membership has expired, you can call us at 1-800-ELECT-US, or send an email to members@lp.org, and we'll tell you.)

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

From Our Friend In Liberty, John Todd

Calendar of Events for your consideration:
 
In case you missed hearing Steven J. Anderson, Director, Kansas Division of the Budget discuss an “Overview of the Budget Directors Office” at last Friday’s Pachyderm luncheon meeting, you can still view the presentation courtesy of the Kansas Watchdog.  Paul Soutar, investigative reporter for the http://kansas.watchdog.org/ sent the two youtube video links below of Steve Anderson’s excellent presentation at last Friday’s (July 19, 2011) Pachyderm Club luncheon meeting with his permission to share them with my email contacts.  In contrast to the report in today’s Wichita Eagle article, I think Governor Brownback’s Budget Director did an outstanding job detailing the governor’s plan to implement budgetary reforms and to take the steps necessary to make our state more competitive, and position our state on the right path for economic growth.  Please take a look for yourself at the videos and be sure to log into the Kansas Watchdog.org site sometime soon for the youtube video of questions and answers the budget director fielded at the Pachyderm meeting.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xy6CcmZZdk
 
Wednesday, July 27, 2011; The Park City Chamber of Commerce invites you to attend their luncheon meeting to hear 4th District Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau present, “A different perspective on economic development”.  The Park City Chamber of Commerce meeting is from 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. at the Best Western Hotel, I-135 & 53rd North in Park City, Kansas.  Please send your RSVP ASAP to John@johntodd.net if you plan to attend.  Please invite guests to attend with you.  Commissioner Ranzau requests that everyone read information contained in the articles found at the following links:

Friday, July 29, 2011; Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and Repealer presents an, “Overview of the Office of the Repealer” at The Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon meeting.  The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, 100 N. Broadway (Bank of America Building), Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend. Without citizen, entrepreneurial, or business input regarding regulation(s) and/or statute(s) that need repealing or at least tweaking, the office of the repealer will have no idea what needs attention so, please take the time to submit your repeal suggestions and ideas using the form provided at the following link: www.repealer.ks.gov/

Friday, August 5, 2011; The Wichita Pachyderm Club will host a forum featuring the following new Wichita City Council Members:
Pete Meitzner, Wichita City Council Member, District II
James Clendenin, Wichita City Council Member, District III
Michael O’Donnell, Wichita City Council Member, District IV
“What it’s like to be a new member of the Wichita City Council?”
The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest. 

Friday, August 12, 2011; The Wichita Pachyderm Club will host a presentation by, Representative Marc Rhodes, Chair, of the Kansas House Committee on Appropriations, “The impact of the freshman legislators on the 2011 House budgetary process”.  The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest. 

Monday, August 15, 2011; Americans For Prosperity Foundation will host it’s monthly program followed by discussion on a topic to be determined. The meeting will be held at the Alford Branch, Wichita Public Library, 3447 S. Meridian, Wichita, Kansas from 7:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.  There is no charge for this event.  Please invite your friends to join you for an informative program that will be followed by a lively group discussion.   

Friday, August 19, 2011; The Wichita Pachyderm Club will host a presentation by, Jay M. Price, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of the public history program at Wichita State University entitled, “Clashes of Values in Kansas History” The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest. 

Friday, August 26, 2011; The Wichita Pachyderm Club will host a presentation by, State Representatives Jim Howell and Joseph Scapa entitled, “Our freshmen year in the Kansas Legislature”.  The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest. 

Friday, September 9, 2011; Mark Masterson, Director, Sedgwick County Department of Corrections presents the “Juvenile Justice System in Sedgwick County” at The Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon meeting.  The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, 100 N. Broadway (Bank of America Building), Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Following the Pachyderm Club meeting from 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m., Club members and guests are invited to tour the Sedgwick County Juvenile Detention Center located at 700 South Hydraulic, Wichita, Kansas.  
 
Friday, September 23, 2011; Dave Trabert, President, Kansas Policy Institute presents, “Why Not Kansas” on education at The Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon meeting.  The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor of the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest. 

Friday, September 30, 2011; Congressman Mike Pompeo presents, “An update from Washington” at The Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon meeting. The Wichita Pachyderm Club meets at 11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on the 9th floor on the Petroleum Club, in the Bank of America Building, 100 N. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas.  The meeting cost is $10.00 and includes a buffet luncheon. You are invited to attend.  Please bring a guest.

Programs occasionally change.  Please don’t hesitate contacting me if you like for the latest information on the programs before you attend. 



--
John R. Todd
john@johntodd.net
1559 Payne
Wichita, Kansas 67203
(316) 312-7335 cell

Sunday, July 24, 2011

From The Sunday July 24, 2011 Edition Of The Wichita Eagle

Letters To The Editor:

Audit the Fed

I got an e-mail from my congressman in which he bragged about his support for H.R. 2560, the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act." This act is a joke. I don't have a Ph.D. in economics, but I don't understand how we tackle the debt by increasing it by $2.4 trillion.
We have one party that is addicted to entitlements, and we have one party that is addicted to war. Who knows — maybe it's the same party.
The root of the problem is the "Federal" Reserve and the international bankers who run it. A bill to audit the Fed, H.R. 459/S. 202, which has been stuck in committee for months, has only two sponsors from Kansas, Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R- Topeka, and Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler. Our other two congressmen, including mine, and our senators won't touch it with a 10-foot pole, yet they constantly bleat about the "out-of-control federal government."
I know it's hot out, folks, but I smell something funky.

TYLER FEENEY
Wichita

A New Edition Of LSOCK News!

LSOCK NEWS, July 23, 2011

Libertarians Of South Central Kansas (LSOCK) meet every Tuesday at Mike's Steakhouse located at 2131 S. Broadway in Wichita, Kansas at 6:00 PM. Supper Hour begins at 5:30 PM. All who support personal responsibility and individual liberty are invited to attend.

Contact the Kansas Libertarian Party or LSOCK at:

LPKS / LSOCK
P.O. Box 2456
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Ph. (800) 335-1776



On the Web please go to http://www.lpks.org/  or to the LSOCK Blog at:



  1. From The Editor
  2. Jack Warner, RIP
  3. Kansas State Fair
  4. Ron Paul on Neocons
  5. A Cross of Gold by Edwin Vieira

1.       From The Editor

Hello everyone,

This is the first full issue I have put out since March. I apologize for this lapse but I have had some things I needed to get done in my personal life.

There are many exciting things and many frightening things happening locally, nationally and around the world currently. It seems that there are going to be many changes coming our way soon and there is hope that some of them may be good for individual liberty.

One of these is that our good Dr Ron Paul has a serious chance to win the Republican nomination for President and become the next President of the United States. He has announced that he is not seeking another term in Congress so that he can concentrate on his Presidential Campaign. The modern Tea Party he brought into existence during his 2008 Presidential Campaign has resulted in the 2010 election of many freedom oriented Representatives and Senators, (including his son, Senator Rand Paul) with the expectation that many more will be elected in 2012 so that President Paul will have support in Congress for his restoration of Constitutional government.

If the Republican Party somehow again fails to nominate Dr Paul there is a good chance that he will run as the Libertarian Party candidate, as he did in 1988. This could mean the end of the two party duopoly and a new era for the LP!

I have included below a 2005 speech by Dr Paul (see number 4 below) warning of the dangers to the Republican Party and the nation from the Neocons. It is long but I encourage you all to read it and help warn the public about this menace to liberty and freedom.

The debt crisis here and in Europe hopefully will result in a repudiation of worthless fiat paper currencies and the eventual end of the Federal Reserve banking system, which I refer to as the biggest criminal enterprise in the history of man. They have stolen our gold and silver both here in the US and worldwide with their paper money scheme and this must be stopped.

Following this thought I have included a 2010 article by Dr Edwin Viera (see number 5 below) titled A Cross Of Gold. Dr Viera, a Harvard Law School graduate and attorney, is probably the foremost living authority on US monetary law, both Constitutional and statute. He is a friend of Ron Paul and shares his (and my) views on the Federal Reserve System.

This article (attached to this email formatted for ease of printing) outlines the options regarding continuing the issuing of debt based currency until the inevitable collapse of both the currency and our economy, or returning to gold and silver currency, a currency that never needs propping up or bailing out.

This article is very long but it is well worth the time and effort to read and study.

For Liberty,

Steven A. Rosile
Editor, LSOCK News

2.       Jack Warner, RIP

My good friend and long time Libertarian Party of Kansas activist, officer and eight time candidate for elective office, Jack Warner of Wright (northeast of Dodge City) passed away Tuesday, July 19. He was 60 years old. I have known Jack for nearly 20 years and will miss him deeply. He was a true friend of liberty.

Below is his obituary as it appeared in the Dodge City Daily Globe.


Jack Warner Obituary

by Mary Albl
Posted Jul 21, 2011 @ 11:21 AM


DODGE CITY
Jack Warner and southwest Kansas seemed to fit together like a cowboy and his favorite horse. Except this pair lasted for 60 years.
    Warner died July 19, 2011, at the Western Plains Medical Complex after a  battle with bone cancer.
    Warner, who was from Wright, was a man who stood tall for his beliefs and interests. Which by nature, were simple, yet complex. In fall of 2010, Warner ran for office in Congress as a Libertarian. This was nothing new as Warner was known for his long attempts in the state and national office.
    "Oh yes he was a people person," his sister, Elaine Pohlmann said. "Joining the Libertarian Party and getting the opportunity to run. And he was able to give a convincing speech. And people complimented him on good reasoning."
    Warner never won during his many attempts as a Libertarian but then again, winning wasn't everything to the man. The many hats of Warner defined who he was and what he enjoyed.
    "He was an interesting historian and he enjoyed using old-antique farm machinery," long-time neighbor and trustee at Dodge City Community College Floris Jean Hampton said. "Definintely interested in the Old West."
    Pohlmann mentioned that her brother would go to all the historical functions and took interest in preserving and knowing the landmarks that defined the area.
    "He was interested in Asa T. Soule," Pohlmann said. "He took me to a lecture on Asa Soule and Soule Canal, which was the Eureka Irrigation Canal."
    Pohlmann also said he was very much into the trails of Santa Fe and Fort Dodge and keeping them preserved.
    "The ruts: 'Don't wanna mess up the ruts in the trail,' he would say," Pohlmann explained.
    His niece, Marcella Hollman, said that her uncle was just a one-of-a-kind person.
    "He just had such a broad knowledge you could talk to him about anything. Especially history," she said. "He was just well versed. He knew something about anything."
    Most well-known perhaps around Dodge and the surrounding areas was the Warner Angus Cattle Ranch, which Warner played a vital role in.
   The most vivid and rich image that brings Warner to mind comes from the Dodge City Days Parade when he rode the famous black horses through the streets.
    "Warners were a beautiful part of the Dodge City Days Parade," Hampton said. "They raised black horses. Their cattle were black. Brought black into riding in parade. One time, probably 15 or so black horses. Been several years though."
    Pohlmann said that during the parade Warner would ride in the middle of three horses trotting proudly and carrying a flag.
    "He would carry the flag for the Warner family," Pohlmann said. "(He) also carried the United States (flag) in which he liked to carry a 13-star flag."
    Warner could be defined by his interest in politics, history and ranching. Really a myriad of things. But his mind is what made him special — something that people most remember about him.
    "Probably just all the things he taught me," Hollman said. "(He'd) show me how to do things. Tell me stories about my grandfather, great-grandfather. Best stories I had of him were just talking with him."


3.   Kansas State Fair

The Kansas State Fair is fast approaching.This year it will run from Friday, September 9th to Sunday, September 18th.  We will again have a Politically Homeless booth at the Fair to present the libertarian message to the public, promote the Libertarian Party of Kansas and hopefully recruit new members and activists.

As we staff the booth with volunteers we need your help. This is a great opportunity to grow our party. Talking with people at the Fair about our party’s philosophy and policies and offering to have them take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz is fun for both our staffers and the public.

If you are interested in volunteering some of your time to help your party at the Fair this year please contact me, Steven A. Rosile, by replying to this email or calling me at 316 618-1339.

Thank you.

4.   Ron Paul on Neocons

                                 We’ve Been Neoconned, by Dr. Ron Paul
                           url:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html
The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong — and I believe they are — we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down — even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced — and they certainly should have been — but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs — they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.
The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.
That remnant — imperfect as it may have been — was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the administration, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored — except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.
The remnant's instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives — especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it's been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-11, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.
Now there's mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter — and especially for expanding the American empire — must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.
In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we're entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven't the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?
Will the euphoria of grand military victories — against non-enemies — ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process — where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy — is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There's no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won't be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later).
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives — a name they gave themselves — diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there's nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
  1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
  2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
  3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
  4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
  5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
  6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
  7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
  8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
  9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
  10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
  11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
  12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
  13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
  14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
  15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
  16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
  17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.
It is no secret — especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq — how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War — which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Early on, they urged war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton's personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.
The money and views of Rupert Murdock also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell's State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdock empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we'll go next — Iran, Syria or North Korea?
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.
It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama's “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: “Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.” Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.
In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.
In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is' is.”
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it's obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There's a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace — believing peace is not a benefit to mankind — is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man's condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there's no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.
Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”
Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries — because that's the way it's always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains: “Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man's disputes. How can one call this progress?
Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It's been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God's approval. Our side refers to a “crusade”; theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.
Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one's soul. Ledeen adds: “Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.”
It's of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.
I'd like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”
He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one's country doesn't come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.
Neocons — anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East — clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for an American world hegemony.
The current attention given neocons usually comes in the context of foreign policy. But there's more to what's going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.
We know those who lead us — both in the administration and in Congress — show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There's no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.
There's no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism — in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty — are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation's capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.
Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there's nothing conservative about expanding the federal government's role in welfare.
The supply-siders' policy of low marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders' argument for a phony gold standard.
Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another — whether or not it is done with good intentions.
I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don't necessarily agree on all points — which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate for — with amazing success I might point out — would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse — though less everyday — and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for C-SPAN and the Internet.
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It's obvious that Ledeen doesn't consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.
If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.
The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration's proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war — for almost any reason — is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington — with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building — there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.
We're at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I'm not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We're all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.
One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn't worked in Japan, and it isn't working here either. As a matter of fact, it's never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem — it's a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it's not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.
Once enough of us decide we've had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising — or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people — we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today's problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many — both in and out of government — close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.
July 10, 2003

5.   A Cross of Gold by Edwin Vieira

By Edwin Vieira, author of Pieces of Eight and other works

[An abridged version of this paper was presented at the Committee on Monetary Research and Education’s meeting of 21 October 2010. For information on CMRE see http://www.cmre.org/index.html ]

The present domestic and international monetary and banking systems have slipped into the initial stages of terminal dissolution. In their present forms, they cannot long survive.

This is not merely my own poor opinion, but the considered view of no less than the United Nations Economic and Social Council. In July of this year it published a report entitled United Nations World Economic and Social Council Survey 2010,1 which stated that “[t]he risk of exchange rate instability and a hard landing of the dollar could be reduced by having a global payments and reserve system which is less dependent on one single national currency”, and that “[a] new global reserve system could be created, one that no longer relies on the United States dollar as the single major reserve currency”.

This is globalist duckspeak for “our present funny-money scam is coming apart at the seams” and “we need to set up a new Ponzi pyramid before the old one collapses”. But if not in its prescription, yet in its description it states the truth.

So the question is not “Will the present domestic and international monetary and banking systems split apart at their seams?” but whether, in the course of their inevitable unraveling, they will drag this whole country—the real America, the America which was once worth the price of admission, the America which used to be a beacon of hope for the entire world—down with them. Or, more precisely, the question is whether those among the American people who are alert to this danger will sit idly by and allow the worst to happen.

“They also serve who only stand and wait” cannot be the watchword in the coming battle.
Remaining aloof will not be a viable option

No hope is to be found in the notion so popular at financial conferences and in the newsletters of investment gurus, that various clever ways exist for individuals to profit personally from the collapse of the reigning monetary and banking systems.

Speculators conjure profits to be reaped from increases in the so-called “price of gold”—going up, up, and up. This, however, is a lamentable econological fallacy, because it

1 To be found on the U.N. website.
                                                    1

measures the value of gold in terms of another, and an unstable, currency: Federal Reserve Notes.

Increases in the so-called “price of gold” largely reflect the decreasing purchasing power of Federal Reserve Notes as against gold—inexorably going down, down, and down (whether because of actual increases in the supply of Federal Reserve Notes or because of an erosion in public confidence in the value of whatever supply exists). If economic history is any guide, the day will surely come when Federal Reserve Notes—as have so many other paper currencies of their ilk—become worthless, except as numismatic curiosities. Then “the price of gold” in Federal Reserve Notes will be exceedingly, perhaps astronomically, high. But no one will care. Once upon a time, “the
price of gold” measured in Weimar “marks”, or even in Confederate “dollars”, was significant. What, though, is “the price of gold” in Weimar or Confederate currency today? Does anyone know? Why would anyone bother to find out? And why should things turn out differently for Federal Reserve Notes?

Astute Americans need to envision, and then to bring about, a new monetary system in which no one talks about “the price of gold”, but only of “prices in gold”.2 No “price of gold” exists when a fixed weight of gold is the actual unit of money. Under those circumstances, all prices are stated in terms of gold. When a fixed weight of gold is the unit of money, “the price of gold” is a meaningless concept, or at best a tautology: namely, “the price of a unit of gold” is precisely “a unit of gold”. In that context, asking what is “the price of gold” would be as sensible as asking today what is “the price of a nominal “one-dollar” Federal Reserve Note”.

So, other than waiting for disaster to supervene, exactly what is to be done?

There are at least three basic plans for dealing with the present situation:

First, the plan of the international political and financial crime families which
are now strangling America and, indeed, the entire world in order to maintain their
empire of “funny money”.

Second, various plans for “reforming” and “regulating” the Federal Reserve
System and somehow “returning” to something some people call a “gold standard”,
based on a “redeemable currency” that is somehow “backed” by gold. And,

Third, a plan for replacing the present unstable and unsustainable monetary
and banking systems with an entirely new system of economically sound, honest, and

2 Gold and silver are the constitutional monetary metals, and the actual constitutional unit of money is silver (the “dollar” of 317.25 grains troy), with gold valued in units of silver at its freemarket exchange-rate with silver. But to simplify this discussion, this paper will treat gold alone as the proxy for the more complicated system.

                                                      2
constitutional money—by introducing into the free market and State governments
an alternative currency consisting solely of gold, with no admixture of paper, and then
letting competition between Federal Reserve Notes and specie settle the matter, once
and for all.

The first two plans are similar, in that they are predicated upon imposing control “from the top down”: namely, common people must use whatever currency “the authorities”—domestic or international—decree.

Under the third plan, control derives “from the bottom up”: namely, the people may use
whatever currency they desire, and those who elect to employ the alternative currency can simply walk away from the Federal Reserve System.

It may be imagined, however, that the second and third plans are at least similar, because
they both rely on gold to some significant degree. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. Here, careful analysis is in order—

[1] A new supra-national monetary régime.
The international political and financial crime families know full well that the Federal
Reserve System—indeed, the whole complex, corrupt apparatus that couples private banks and public institutions through the Treasury of the United States—is inherently unstable and needs to be replaced, because it can no longer be propped up, let alone reformed in any fundamental sense.

Knowing that the Federal Reserve System’s days are numbered, they intend to translate the papercurrency scam to the next level, just as they have done, step by step, in crisis after crisis, throughout American history. To understand this a review of the past is necessary:

Prior to the Civil War, America suffered from two attempts by Congress to impose a so-called “national bank” (the first and second Banks of the United States), as well as from the States’ creation of numerous State and local banks, both private and quasi-public in character. This loose arrangement failed, because of the inherent instability of fractional-reserve banking and the insoluble economic and political conflicts it inexorably and inevitably generates. In particular, although all of the banks operated on the same principle of “fractional reserves”, no way was found to coordinate and control their individual cycles of expansion and contraction of currency and credit for their
mutual benefit. Instead, the banks’ unregulated competitive looting of society through monetary manipulations led periodically to serious economic breakdowns called “bank runs”, “suspensions of specie payments”, “stringencies”, “panics”, “depressions”, and so on. To overcome these problems, the locus of the bankers’ economic power needed to be translated to a higher level, and their economic power needed to be brigaded with, or at least protected by, political power.

                                                    3
Thus, during the Civil War, to prop up and organize the fractional-reserve system, a new set of banks—called “National Banks”—was created and tied to the United States Treasury and the national debt through the National Currency Acts in 1863 and 1864. Yet, although these institutions were called “National Banks”, this was a scheme of merely regional and imperfect cartelization.

The weaknesses of this system became apparent only forty-three (43) years after the initiation of the scheme, when the great panic of 1907 proved that the National Banking System needed a major overhaul. The fundamental flaws pointed out at the time were that the system provided no single “lender of last resort” to pump up the pyramid of currency and credit in times of crisis, and set up no central regulator to discipline the bankers in order, if possible, to forefend crises altogether.

To overcome these deficiencies, the locus of economic power needed to be translated to a still higher level. So full national cartelization and central regulation of the banks was set up in the Federal Reserve System through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.3 Indeed, the Federal Reserve System went beyond mere national cartelization to national Ponzification. The Federal Reserve regional banks promised their depositors to redeem Federal Reserve Notes on demand, which promises were “guaranteed” by the United States Treasury’s ability to extract payments from taxpayers.4

So, just as in a classical Ponzi scheme present payments to the first tier of “investors” are “guaranteed” by revenues to be derived from subsequent tiers of duped “investors”, under the Federal Reserve System promises of present redemption of Federal Reserve Notes were “guaranteed” by anticipated tax revenues—except that, far better than the classical Ponzi scheme, these revenues could be coerced from unwilling “investors”.

Yet, once again, the inherent, inexorable instability of “fractional-reserve banking” proved too destructive for legislative draftsmen to contain. By 1932—a scant twenty (20) years after its inception—the Federal Reserve System (as the saying has it) “went off the gold standard” by suspending specie payments domestically in 1933 and 1934. And that suspension continues to this very day.

Nonetheless, because of the uniquely favorable situation of the United States in the aftermath

3 An Act To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic
currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes, Act of 23 December 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251.

 4 See FR Act of 1913, § 16, ¶ 1, now as amended, 12 U.S.C. § 411. To be sure, the Treasury could then assert a first lien on the assets of the Federal Reserve regional banks. See FR Act of 1913, § 16, ¶ 4, now as amended, 12 U.S.C. § 414. But what good would this be if those banks were bankrupt and therefore without sufficient assets?

                                                      4
of World War II, it was possible once again for the magicians of monetary manipulation to secure their own positions by translating the locus of economic power to a still higher level. Under the Bretton Woods Agreement5 and the International Monetary Fund6 in 1945, the Federal Reserve System effectively became the first “world central bank”, and the Federal Reserve Note effectively became “the world reserve currency”.

This went beyond national cartelizaton and Ponzification to international Ponzification, but still nationally centered. That is, the bankers’ scheme moved to a higher level than under the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but still only partially and imperfectly.

A central pillar of this structure collapsed only twenty-six (26) years later, though, when the Federal Reserve System and its surety, the United States Treasury, defaulted on “the international gold standard” in 1971, suspending specie payments on Federal Reserve Notes to everyone everywhere. And that suspension, too, continues unto this very day.

Now the disintegration of the entire edifice of central banking and fractional-reserve debt-currencies has begun—not just nationally, but globally as well—only thirty-nine (39) years after the final repudiation of redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in 1971.

Observe that, before it lurched into chaos, the first “world central bank” and “world reserve currency” held together for only thirteen (13) years more than the original Federal Reserve System (from 1913 to 1933), and for four (4) years less than the original National Banking System (from 1864 to 1907).

Today, similar to the situations that existed prior to the National Currency Act and the
original Federal Reserve Act—(i) A multiplicity of national or regional central banks, all operating on the faulty principle of “fractional reserves”, exists. And (ii) All of these banks are attempting to accommodate irresponsible governmental fiscal policies and robber-baron pillaging of private economies in their home territories.

The difference is that an ersatz “world central bank” has been jury-rigged around the Federal Reserve System—but it is located in one country, is tied to that country’s laws, and is trying to sustain the reckless fiscal policies and unbridled financial brigandage of perhaps the most fiscally profligate and even corrupt of all nations in the history of the world. (Again, this is not my poor opinion only. Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff now estimates the General Government’s so-called “fiscal gap”—that is, the present value of the difference between projected governmental spending and

5 Act of 31 July 1945, Pub. L. 171, 59 Stat. 512.

6 T.I.A.S. 1501 (27 December 1945), 60 Stat. 1401, especially Art. IV, § 1(a), 60 Stat. at
1403.
                                                      5
projected government revenues in all future years—to be some $202 trillion “dollars”.7 And this is “the fiscal gap” of the General Government alone!

As with the National Currency Act, no adequate “lender of last resort” is available to bail out the Federal Reserve System as a whole (other than perhaps the United States Treasury, by printing so-called “Lincoln Greenbacks” directly). And no supra-national regulator exists to moderate the Federal Reserve’s excesses. No national regulator exists, either, as Congress has proven impotent and incompetent in that capacity—or, perhaps more accurate a description, has functioned as a coconspirator in the process of domestic and international looting.

Thus, the world is confronted by a shaky state of affairs similar to that which plagued the
United States during the era of the National Currency Act and that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System—except that the present situation is orders of magnitude more serious. So, one can confidently predict on the basis of precedent that the international political and financial crime families will now attempt to create a true supra-national world “central bank of issue” empowered to emit a new supra-national currency, supra-nationally “managed”, and to exercise regulatory authority over all national central banks—in all things free from control by any national or regional government. Which, of course, will render this new supra-national bank itself a species of world government, or at least the nucleus of one.

As pointed out earlier, one such plan has already being floated among the international elitists through the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The United Nations World Economic and ocial Survey 2010 called for the Federal Reserve Note to be replaced as the reserve currency for international trade with a new currency to be issued by the International Monetary Fund, and initially based on the IMF’s so-called “special drawing rights”.8 More recently, on 4 October of this year the Institute of International Finance, a consortium in which are associated some four hundred twenty (420) of the world’s most important banks and financial institutions, issued a policy letter
which also advocated the emission by the IMF of a new currency based on “special drawing rights”.

Actually, this is not a new idea. In essence, it was John Maynard Keynes’ original proposal leading up to Bretton Woods—namely, that a true supra-national bank would emit its own global currency, to be called the bancor, which eventually would supplant all national and regional currencies, not only in international but also in domestic commerce (and, presumably, with respect to all political payments, such as taxes, too). So, one can expect that theoreticians of and other

7 See his article “United States is bankrupt” at <www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11>.
8 “Special Drawing Rights” are an ersatz international reserve currency, the value of which are derived from a “basket” of major currencies, and that are allocated to members of the IMF in proportion to the amounts of gold or (primarily) major foreign currencies that those members deposit with the IMF.
                                                    6

mouthpieces for paper currency and fractional-reserve central banking will now contend that the present failure of the Federal Reserve System as an ersatz “world central bank” arose precisely because world leaders did not follow Keynes’ recommendation.
In any event, whatever its provenance, the globalist political oligarchs and the globalist
economic oligarchs are now all playing the same discordant tune. And when one hears the overture, he knows that the opera cannot be far behind.

The supra-national character of this proposed new global currency, and of the institution that will emit it, is of crucial importance, because contemporary Americans still retain the power to deal with the Federal Reserve System directly, through Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which provides that “[t]he right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.”9 But they will lose this power when a supra-national monetary scheme is imposed on them. And whatever other, similar power (if any) they might retain for themselves will depend upon the terms of the treaty or other international agreement by which the new currency gains legal-tender status in the
United States.

To be sure, a treaty cannot override the Constitution of the United States. And a treaty can always be set aside, in part or in whole, by a subsequent statute of Congress. Nonetheless, because the American people never demanded that it be enforced, the Constitution has not stopped, or even retarded the profligacy of, the Federal Reserve System since 1913. Neither have the Members of Congress whom the people have elected generation after generation ever invoked Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act, or any other provision of any other statute, to correct the banking cartel’s excesses, except to make them worse (such as by removing redemption in gold, outlawing the private ownership of gold from 1933 until 1973, and outlawing gold-clause contracts from 1933 until 1978).

So one can safely presume that any new supra-national global currency and central bank will be even harder for Americans to influence, let alone control, than the Federal Reserve System has proven to be. The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication—indeed, in some quarters the expectation—that this scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it. This could be used as the bait to entice naïve people tired of monetary instability caused by international bankers to bite on the hook of supranational management of their economies by the selfsame international bankers.

Beyond any doubt, however, whatever will be offered will not be even a traditional “gold
standard”, perforce of which the issuer of a unit of paper currency (or bank credit solvable in that currency) will be required by law to exchange each unit of its currency for a fixed weight of gold upon demand by the holder of that currency. Neither will it be a true “gold standard”, in which the only actual unit of money is a fixed weight of gold, and everything else is merely an instrument of

9 38 Stat. at 275.
                                                        7

debt without final “legal tender” force as currency. So, even with whatever thin gold veneer may be provided (if that is the ruse to be used), the new supra-national global currency will be a deception from its inception.

In light of the precedents, though, notwithstanding its inherent instability the new swindle
may be able to perdure for perhaps another forty (40) years, during which time tremendous further looting, waste of resources, and other damage will be visited upon the peoples of the world.

Again, what is to be done by Americans to forefend this?

Basically, they have two choices:

(1) Americans can try to salvage, “repair”, “restore”, and then control the present Federal
Reserve System. Or,

(2) They can provide themselves with an entirely new currency, preferably before the present one completely self-destructs.

[2] Salvaging the Federal Reserve System by returning Federal Reserve Notes to redeemability in gold.

More than half a century ago, Professor Walter E. Spahr rather starkly summed up the
situation: It should not be surprising that apparently all who would socialize our economy are opposed to the restoration of a redeemable currency in the United States. Either
because they understand the relationship between an irredeemable currency and the
process of socialization or because they simply note that Socialist, Communist, and
Fascist governments employ irredeemable currencies as a means of controlling and
managing the people, advocates of government dictatorship seem invariably to defend
irredeemable currencies with the utmost vigor. The evidence seems overwhelming
that a defender of irredeemable currency is, wittingly or unwittingly, an advocate of
socialism or of government dictatorship in some form.

So long as a government has the power over a people that is provided by an
irredeemable currency, all efforts to stop a government disposed to lead a people into
socialism tend to be, and probably will be futile. The people of the United States have
observed all sorts of efforts, organized and individual, to bring pressure upon Congress
to end its spending orgy and processes of socialization. It should be amply clear by this
time that none of these efforts has succeeded. Moreover, there is no reason for
supposing that any of them, except the restoration of redeemability, can succeed in arresting our march into socialism.
                                                              8
With all due respect to the memory of Professor Spahr, however, the fundamental problem is not irredeemable currency. It is, and always has been, redeemable currency—at base, the delusion that the thing being redeemed (a paper note) is the actual “money”, not the thing in which redemption is made (a piece of actual gold)

Revealingly, not even the original Federal Reserve Act made that error. Section 16 of the Act provided that:

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks * * * are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States, and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, * * * or in gold or lawful money at any Federal reserve bank. 10

Observe: From the very first, Federal Reserve Notes were denominated “advances” and
“obligations”—that is, instruments and evidence of debt. True “money”, however, is the most liquid of all assets, not a debt that might be repudiated, and certainly not a debt that has been serially repudiated.

And if Federal Reserve Notes were from the start to be “redeemed * * * in gold or lawful
money”, they obviously were never conceived to be either “gold” or “lawful money”. So, because the only “money” the law recognizes is “lawful money”, by law Federal Reserve Notes were never “money” at all, but at best some sort of substitute for “money”.

The monetary conjurers’ trick has been, slowly, steadily, and stealthily, to reverse this
understanding in the public’s mind.

The subterfuge was not overly difficult to put over. After all, in the term “redeemable
currency”, which is the noun and which the adjective? When people deal with a “paper currency redeemable in gold”, the natural uninstructed inclination is to treat the paper currency as “money” and the gold as something else. The paper currency, as the saying goes, is merely “backed” by gold—but of course is not itself gold. And because the currency is not itself gold, the monetary manipulators can remove the gold “backing” further and further into the background, withoutaffecting the nature of the paper as “currency” (at least nominally).

Thus, a “redeemable currency” can be converted into a “contingently redeemable” or

10 ¶ 1, 38 Stat. at 265.
                                                   9
 “conditionally redeemable” currency, through temporary suspension of specie payments (as happened repeatedly during the Nineteenth Century); and then into a full-fledged “irredeemable currency”, through permanent suspension of specie payments, as with Federal Reserve Notes after 1933 domestically and 1971 internationally.11

Yet, to the average citizen (whose most serious liability is mental inertia), even though a
paper currency’s promise of redemption has been dishonored, it remains “currency”.
Thus one grasps that the so-called “right to redemption” attached to any paper currency is
actually a liability, inasmuch as it exposes the holders of that currency to repudiation, because they possess only the paper, not the gold.
Even in the best of times, the holders of redeemable paper currency are not economically and politically independent. Rather, they depend upon the honesty and the competence of the moneymanagers. This is why America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ value in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs. The unavoidable trouble with “bills of credit”, though, is that they can (and usually do) turn out to be “bills of discredit”, when the holders discover that the money-managers are dishonest and incompetent—or worse, as is the situation today, highly competent at dishonesty. Then the holders
of the paper currency realize how unwise it is to allow the gold to be held by the very people with the greatest incentive, and the uniquely favorable opportunity, to steal it.
But when these people refuse to redeem the paper currency, what can the holders of that
currency do to protect themselves? Well, what were they able to do in 1933 and in 1971? Nothing.

If the holders of Federal Reserve Notes had enjoyed an effective, enforceable “right” to the gold that the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury of the United States promised to pay in redemption of those notes—that is, if the currency had been “redeemable” in the only meaningful sense that redemption was absolutely assured as a matter of law and fact—the gold seizures of 1933 and 1971 would never have happened.

Thus, “redeemable currency” of the pre-1933 and pre-1971 type did not protect the holders of that currency. Instead, it turned out to be the very device used to deceive, defraud, and dispossess them of gold—proving in the most palpable manner that a society’s acceptance of “redeemable currency” is the product of confusion and the invitation to inevitable economic and political disaster.

In The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises outlined a proposal for returning to a

11 See 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b and c).

                                                  10

Federal Reserve Note redeemable in gold. No doubt, coming from that source, it is a workable approach. But, even assuming arguendo that it could be done, why should it be done? A plan of this type offers no more than a cruelly delusive hope. Consider some of the demerits of this type of plan—

• First and foremost, the goal is not constitutional in any event, because every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.

Moreover, the Federal Reserve System is a corporative-state banking cartel indistinguishable from the very types of cartels set up under the National Industrial Recovery and Bituminous Coal Conservation Acts, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, without dissenting voice, in the Schechter and Carter cases in the mid-1930s. Except that the Federal Reserve System is arguably worse, because the monetary and banking cartel influences every form of production and delivery of all goods and services throughout the country, so that the confusion and corruption it injects into the free market is pervasive in a manner in which even the National Industrial Recovery
Act was not and could never have been.

The question of constitutionality the key to the whole problem, because if the Constitution had been faithfully executed all along, America would not be treading water in the monetary septic tank today. And only by returning to the Constitution can Americans hope to extricate themselves completely in the long run. Yet vanishingly few people take much notice, or appear to be at all worried, that, as far as the constitutional aspects of money and banking in America are concerned, Mussolini won the political and economic war—that, in truth, this country now suffers under the Fascist Reserve System.
• Leaving aside questions of constitutionality, and turning to matters of fact, the plan for
returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold retains the fascistic Federal Reserve System’s banking cartel, which will perpetuate factionalism at the heart of America’s economy. In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison pointed out that [a]mong the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union,
none deserve to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control
the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so
much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity
to this dangerous vice. * * * The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into
the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular
governments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the favorite and
fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious
declamations. * * *
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a

11 See 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b and c).

                                                  11
majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common
impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the
permanent and aggregate interests of the community. Madison then went on to point out what he considered egregious forms of factionalism, starting with “[a] rage for paper money”.

This passage seems to have been penned for the Federal Reserve System and “the financial community” of which it is the cornerstone. For no one can possibly deny that this edifice of financial chicanery serves one very narrow set of very special, very selfish interest groups, at the expense of everyone else in society. Neither is it deniable that, together with its satellites and clients, the Federal Reserve System holds the entire country hostage to “the financial community’s” negligence, incompetence, venality, corruption, and even criminality. For, if the System is not exonerated and “bailed out” repetitively from the consequences of its own blunders and sordid excesses—as it has
been, serially and under conditions of increasing severity and cost, since 1932—its managers and clients threaten, either implicitly or even volubly as they did before the TARP “bail out”, to take down the entire national economy, and with it this country as a whole, bringing about untold political and social dislocations, disturbances, distress, and destruction. This is the essence of malignant factionalism.

• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold is also economically psychotic: It does not rein in fractional-reserve banking and the destructive Ponzi schemes fractional-reserve practices foster. Rather, it presumes that fractional-reserve banking will continue to operate indefinitely, just as it has in the past, supposedly to be “stabilized” by the Federal Reserve System and a resurrected pseudo-“gold standard”. But, as both theory and history attest, it is fractional-reserve banking that has made a stable “gold standard” of the traditional type impossible.

So the plan is bottomed on the self-contradictions that a system antithetical to a “gold standard” can be stabilized by a “gold standard”, and that a “gold standard” will long remain an integral component of a system the normal operations of which a “gold standard” constrains!
• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold does not separate fractional-reserve banking from the government, but accepts and even hopes to cement their integration permanently. Because fractional-reserve banking is inherently unstable. This arrangement is triply unsatisfactory: (i) This unnatural coupling destabilizes the government’s finances. (ii) By misusing the government’s monopoly of force in what will inevitably prove a vain attempt to stabilize the banking cartel, it destabilizes this country’s economic and political systems in their entireties. And (iii) it destabilizes even the banking cartel itself, because the protection the cartel receives from the consequences of its own excesses, perforce of its special relationship with the government, encourages and facilitates the bankers’ perpetration of further and more egregious excesses.
• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold, and

                                                    12

thereafter administering the national stock of currency and credit on that basis, is in the final analysis a scheme of central economic planning—employing bureaucratic managers to maintain a fixed rate of redemption of paper currency in gold in the face of both ever-changing conditions in the free market, and the tendency to Ponzification of fractional-reserve banks and the rapacious “financial community” allied therewith. But is not the salient economic lesson of the Twentieth Century that central economic planning does not work, no matter how many computers and information technology gurus are put to the task?

Would anyone in his right mind advocate the establishment of a Federal Bread Board to
manage the production and distribution of bread throughout America? If every person of sound mind would reject this notion for one simple commodity such as bread (which anyone with a cookbook can learn how to bake in an afternoon), let alone for all categories of production in the most complex economy the world has ever known, then on what reasoning should it be accepted for the very special commodity—money—the soundness or unsoundness of which affects the production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the economy, because it is the commodity in which the exchange rates of all goods and services are measured?

On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve System has proven to be such a good idea since
1913, or 1933, or 1971, or perhaps even the last several years, then why should its marvelous principles of organization, control, and concern for the welfare of average Americans not be extended to all other necessary commodities, such as food, clothing, shelter, personal transportation, and health care, to name just a few? Why should not America resurrect and reinstitute the National Industrial Recovery Act?

Why not, indeed? For this is exactly what is going to happen—in fact, if not perforce of some statute—because the tail (the Federal Reserve System) will end up wagging the dog (the rest of the economy). And if the tail is fascistic, so will the dog eventually become fascistic. Central fascistic control of the pricing system through manipulation of currency and credit must eventually lead to central fascistic control of the entire productive system. Which will require police-state mechanisms to keep the bulk of the population in line, as common Americans’ standards of living decline towards second and even third-world levels. • The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold is politically impractical, if not wholly implausible, because any such reform has to be accomplished at the level of the Federal Reserve System through the General Government.

Now, for various reasons of institutional incompetence, this plan cannot be put into effect
through the Judiciary. The Judiciary may be able—although one must doubt that it would ever be willing—to declare some or all of the Federal Reserve System to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful; but it cannot prescribe to Congress the substance of new statutes necessary to correct the situation, and certainly cannot compel Congress to enact such legislation. Thus, the Judiciary can suddenly cause chaos within the monetary and banking systems, by throwing a legal monkey-wrench

                                                   13

into their gears, but can do next to nothing to repair the damage its own actions bring about. Knowing that limitation on their powers, judges would likely do everything possible to avoid deciding a case that raises such issues.

Therefore, to be successful, the proponents of the plan for returning the Federal Reserve
System to redemption of its notes in gold would need to gain control of or decisive influence over the Executive Branch, so as to be able to use (say) the authority granted in 12 U.S.C. § 95(a)12 and 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a)13—as well as the ability effectively to veto any contrary legislation emanating from Congress.

Or, of greatest value, the proponents of this plan would need to gain control of or decisive
influence over Congress, in order to enact new laws that the Executive Branch and the Federal Reserve System would then follow—and, of course, along with this, the ability to override any veto of those new bills, as well as to punish any failure or foot-dragging by the Executive Branch in the execution of these laws.

1212 U.S.C. § 95(a) provides 12 that “[i]n order to provide for the safer and more effective
operation of the national Banking System and the Federal Reserve System, to preserve for the people the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the national banking system and the Federal reserve system, and to relieve interstate commerce of the burdens and obstructions resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis of deposits subject to withdrawal by check, during such emergency period as the President of the United States by proclamation may prescribe, no member bank of the Federal reserve system shall transact any banking business except to such extent and subject to such regulations, limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President. Any individual, partnership,
corporation, or association, or any director, officer or employee thereof, violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or, if a natural person, may, in addition to such fine, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding ten years. Each day that any such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.”

13 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a) provides that “[e]xcept to the extent authorized in regulations the
Secretary of the Treasury prescribes with the approval of the President, the Secretary may not redeem United States currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks) in gold.”
Presumably, this would allow redemption in gold bullion only. See 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b): “The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury in exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held.” And 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a): “When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion * * * in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented for redemption.”

                                                   14

Furthermore, the proponents of this plan would also, perhaps especially, need to gain control of or to assert decisive influence over the Federal Reserve System itself and its allies in “the financial community”—which otherwise could effectively veto or paralyze the execution of any proposed reforms by threatening to create chaos in the markets. Unless those threats were deterred with promises that any such interference would be met with severe punishments—such as are mandated in 12 U.S.C. § 95(a).

So, all things considered, a true reform from any of these sources—although necessary and sufficient—is extremely unlikely. Instead, any supposed “monetary and banking reform” coming from these sources will almost surely be aimed at erecting a new supra-national currency and central bank. “The financial community’s” mouthpieces are already telling America precisely that.

Even assuming arguendo that the political problem of control of or influence over the General Government and the Federal Reserve System could be solved, intractable practical problems would remain—

• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold
depends upon using the gold in the so-called “national gold stock” for the initial round of redemption That, however, leaves open the questions:

(i)                 How much gold is actually there? And,
(ii)              
(ii) How much of that gold is encumbered in some way so that it cannot be
used for redemption? And,

(iii) If sufficient gold is or could be made available for redemption tomorrow,
then why is the Secretary of the Treasury not even now fulfilling his statutory
obligation, under 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a), to “redeem gold certificates owned by the
Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to
maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency”, at the
statutory value of gold with relation to gold certificates “of 42 and two-ninth dollars
a fine troy ounce”, set in 31 U.S.C. § 5117(b)? And,

 (iv) Notwithstanding the limitations on judicial relief set out in 31 U.S.C. § 5118(c), will individuals be entitled to enforce their claims to redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in actual gold, by obtaining from the courts judgements, mandatory injunctions, and other like orders that require the Federal Reserve Banks and the Treasury of the United States to pay out gold in exchange for those notes at some fixed rate? Or will the supposed “right” of redemption be (as it always has been) a toothless paper tiger?

Obviously, these questions must be completely and unequivocally answered before anyone can
                                                     15

begin to plan intelligently for, or really even to advocate, a return to redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold—or before any holder of those notes takes seriously a reformed Federal Reserve System’s assertion he will enjoy a true right, in both law and fact, to redemption. But will these questions be answered? For example, precisely how can the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System be compelled to disgorge the necessary information? What will it require to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to fulfill his present statutory obligations in the premises, let alone any new ones that may be required? And how can a true right of redemption be secured, unless it is somehow explicitly recognized and enforced as constitutional in nature?

• In any event, assuming arguendo that sufficient unencumbered gold exists in the “national gold stock” to start the process of redemption, and that the Secretary of the Treasury and other public officials can be compelled to fulfill their duties, the further question nonetheless remains: “At what rate of exchange should a Federal Reserve Note “dollar”-bill be redeemed with gold?”

Fortunately, 12 U.S.C. § 411 does not fix the rate of exchange at which Federal Reserve
Notes “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand on the Treasury Department * * * or at any Federal Reserve bank”. And § 30 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 licenses Congress to establish essentially any rate of exchange. Which is why the original repudiation of redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold domestically, and its modification internationally, in 1933 and 1934 was probably constitutional (to the extent the Federal Reserve Act itself is constitutional)—namely, because Congress had explicitly reserved in 1913 the right to make any changes it wanted in the
Federal Reserve Act thereafter. So, when the rate of exchange was reduced from $20.67 per ounce to zero domestically, and from $20.67 per ounce to $35.00, and now to $42.22 per ounce internationally, Congress was merely exercising a right it had retained from the very beginning.

Yet, even given that any rate of exchange is allowable, how would a particular, presumably economically correct, new rate of exchange be maintained?
In light of the serial illegalities and duplicities of the past that brought America to this sorry pass, what new “checks and balances” would be necessary and sufficient to convince a doubting nation and world that the same swindle would not be allowed to be perpetrated again? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 required redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold, and set reserve requirements of 40% for Federal Reserve Notes in actual circulation and 35% for the deposits held in Federal Reserve regional banks—yet these limitations were set aside only twenty (20) years later following the banking collapse of 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt then set an exchange rate of $35.00
per ounce of gold for Federal Reserve Notes—yet, in terms of actual payments, this rate become meaningless after August of 1971, only thirty-seven (37) years after Roosevelt conjured up the $35.00 per ounce figure. So, critics are entitled to ask—
Are effective economic “checks and balances” possible under present
conditions? Assuming good faith and competence in the managers of the plan, can

                                                 16

it be made to work at all, even to get back to the situation pre-1971, let alone pre-
1933, given the present terrible burden of public and private debt throughout
America, the gutting of this nation’s real productive capacity, and her over-extension
around the world in military imperialism and adventurism? Then, too,

Are effective political “checks and balances” possible under present conditions? What if the managers who happen to be chosen to oversee the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury in years to come prove incompetent or act in bad
faith, or both? What if they simply continue to do the bidding of the racketeering
enterprises and other criminal conspiracies that pass for “political parties” in
Washington, D.C., and “financial institutions” in New York City?

The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold does not in and of itself limit such rogue public officials, bankers, and financial plungers from manipulating currency and credit as the means to grab power and wealth, any more than did the old “gold standard” from 1913 to 1933 (or to 1971). Certainly no system of effective “checks and balances” has yet been proposed, let alone tested, that would lend credibility to the plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold. And the precedents do not augur well. For nothing that has ever been done since 1913 with an eye towards controlling the Federal Reserve System in the interests of common Americans has ever worked, or perhaps was ever capable of working—or America would not find herself where she is today, being importuned to cede ever more
and ever-more-abusive powers to the System’s bosses, with no adequate provision for either reviewability or accountability. Obviously, implementing a so-called “price rule” is not even a simplistic answer. Such was the basis of the original Federal Reserve Act—the “price rule” being $20.67 per ounce of gold—and everyone knows how well that worked.

Without an absolutely enforceable constitutional guarantee—and by that is meant a guarantee enforceable directly by the people themselves, because they either hold their gold in their own hands or themselves physically control the depositories in which their gold is secured—rogue public officials and their clients in the banking cartel and “the financial community” can be expected to ferret out one means or another to change to their special advantage the rate of redemption(as it was serially altered after 1933) or even to eliminate it entirely (as it was in 1933 domestically and 1971 internationally).

• Even if all of the foregoing problems could be solved, what would be the point?
The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold would not provide a truly sound currency, any more than the original Federal Reserve System ever did. It would merely give America the currency of pre-1933, or (worse) pre-1971, which has been experimentally proven to be unsound.
• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold would perpetuate the fallacy of “redeemable currency”—namely, that the Federal Reserve Note is the

                                                  17
“dollar”, and some amount of gold is its “backing”.

But— A Federal Reserve Note is not a “dollar”, but is a mere promise to pay a “dollar”, which has been utterly dishonored by both the banks and the Treasury since 1933 (as to gold domestically) and 1971 (as to gold internationally), even unto this very day.14

And Sound, honest, and constitutional “Money” has NO “backing” consisting of or based on something else. It needs no “backing”, because it has SUBSTANCE in and of itself. It is ACTUAL GOLD, not a mere promise to deliver gold. Sound, honest, and constitutional “Money” cannot be repudiated, because it does not need to and cannot be “redeemed”. It is the ABSENCE of “redeemability”—the LACK OF NECESSITY OR DESIRABILITY for “redeemability”—that constitutes the essence and provides the strength of sound, honest, and constitutional “Money”.

• As a further demerit, the plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold would retain the institutions, and attempt to validate the false ideas, that were the instrumental causes of all of our problems. Under this plan, the merry-go-round of financial looting would not be permanently shut down, only temporarily slowed down—and not for a fundamental redesign, but only for repairs and repainting. Then it would then be returned to operation under the same old management (at least in type), running in the same old direction, for the same old purposes. And inevitably with the same old results—because a merry-go-round cannot be straightened out.

• Most distressing to one’s sense of justice, the plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold also would reward the very class of people who caused or allowed nearly a century of monetary and banking problems to beset this country. By bailing them out of the mess they have caused, without punishment, without even censure, but with protection and payoffs, present and future, it would perpetuate their system, their power, their wealth, their status, their prestige. It would maintain them in positions from which—if they operated in the future as they have in the past, as history and a knowledge of human nature premonish America that they would—they
could despoil this country once again, just as they did with the original Federal Reserve System.

• The plan for returning the Federal Reserve System to redemption of its notes in gold would require not only perhaps more perspicacity than Americans probably could muster, but above all more patience. It would take a long time to implement. Therefore, it would demand the people’s acceptance—really, the imposition—of political and economic discipline. Yet where would such patience and discipline be found, when this country is riven by contending factions for which après moi le déluge are the watchwords?
In particular, who would impose that discipline against all of the economically and politically

14 See 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b and c). 

     18

powerful factions that want “funny money” and the Ponzi pyramids it facilitates? And how could such discipline be maintained, in the face of the monumental, arguably unpayable debt of the General Government? Would it not require the intervention of the Armed Forces—“government by junta” in the sorry style of Argentina and other Latin-American republics? One must presume so.

For the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon are even now preparing, in anticipation of massive civil unrest when the monetary and banking systems finally melt down, to involve the Armed Forces in domestic peacekeeping.15
•As if all these shortcomings were not enough, the plan for returning the Federal Reserve
System to redemption of its notes in gold would put all of this country’s monetary eggs in one political-cum-economic basket. If the plan did not work, all would likely be lost. This would be equivalent to playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.

In sum, the return-to-redemption plan is an act of self-deception, if not desperation, which does not take advantage even of hindsight. For it proposes to reverse American monetary history on the basis of the very principles and practices which that history has already proven to be unworkable.

[3] An alternative gold currency.
Which brings this survey to the third plan for monetary reform—the adoption on a State-by- State basis of a new, sound, honest, and constitutional alternative currency consisting of actual gold as an—and ultimately the only—currency officially recognized by the State.

First and foremost, adoption of such an alternative currency would be an act of foresight. It would recognize that resuscitation of the Federal Reserve System is impossible, and that acceptance of a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace that System would be intolerable.

Second, and no less important, adoption of an alternative gold currency would be an act of scientific insight, because it would introduce a currency the objective value of which could always be verified or falsified immediately upon inspection. That objective value would be a fixed weight of gold. It would be an objective value, because an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold—everywhere throughout the world, no matter what economic, political, or social conditions prevailed. Under this plan, a specific weight of gold, and only that weight of gold, would become the State’s
official monetary unit. Thus, the holder of the currency himself would not only own but would actually possess the gold, because gold would be the currency.

Contrast this with a Federal Reserve Note. Even when such a note was “redeemable” in gold, some Federal Reserve regional bank or the United States Government actually owned and possessed

15 See the author’s commentary on this issue, “Going to the Roots of the Problem” at
<www.newswithviews.com>. 

                                                                               19

the gold that “backed” the note; and the holder of the note had no more than a claim to redemption. Only upon actual redemption did actual title to and possession of the gold change hands. And that right of redemption was eventually cancelled, both domestically and internationally. As to gold, then, Federal Reserve Notes proved to be, as John Exter so well put it, “an I.O.U. nothing currency”, made possible because the “currency” and the gold were separate things, under the control of different people. But with gold as money, nothing is owed, so no debt of redemption can ever be repudiated.

Third, also in the scientific spirit, an alternative gold currency would allow for more than one experiment to be conducted—indeed, as many as fifty separate experiments in each of the several States would be possible. If any single experiment should fail, it would do so only locally, not nationally. If it succeeded, it could be expanded quickly and easily enough elsewhere. And by the process of judicious trial and error, constant improvements on any initial success would be possible. Moreover, even if politically influential factions could succeed in stopping the adoption of an alternative currency in one State, they would be at pains to suppress it in every other State as well. And if they did not stop it everywhere, the market would prove the theory somewhere.

Fourth, adoption of an alternative gold currency could be accomplished incrementally and gradually, allowing the market to set and equilibrate prices as more and more people employed the new currency in preference to Federal Reserve Notes. No sudden, economically disorienting jump from Federal Reserve Notes to gold would occur.

Fifth, quite unlike the Federal Reserve System and its bills of credit, an alternative currency consisting of gold would be fully constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the States are not bound to use as their currency a currency emitted by Congress—in particular, that they may choose to employ gold and silver in preference to irredeemable paper currency, even when Congress has declared that paper currency to be “legal tender”.16 Thus, the adoption of an alternative gold currency would return each State to the rule of law with respect to money.

Sixth, introduction of an alternative gold currency would not depend upon a State’s having any gold in her Treasury at the beginning of the process. Indeed, adoption of such an alternative currency would bring gold into the State’s Treasury right away. Constitutionally, of course, the States cannot coin money.17 Only Congress enjoys the power “[t]o coin Money”.18 But, inasmuch as an alternative gold currency could—and initially should—consist of bullion, not coin, no State would be dependent upon the assistance of Congress and the United States Treasury in the adoption of such a currency.

16 Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wallace) 71 (1869); Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).

17 U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1.

18 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 5.
                                                                                20

Seventh, employment of an alternative gold currency would not involve a State in the rat’s nest of central economic planning. A State would not be required to attempt to regulate the supply of money against a so-called “price level”, to fix interest rates, or to engage in any of the other political-cum-economic manipulations characteristic of a central bank. Whatever amount of gold the people desired to use as their alternative currency would become currency; and the free market would then rationally establish and mutually adjust the prices in gold of all goods and services.
Eighth, adoption of an alternative gold currency would not serve only one set of selfish
special-interest groups at the expense of the rest of society. In particular, adoption of such a currency would facilitate the absolute separation of private banking from the government, on a State-by-State basis. No longer would bankers and their clients in “the financial community” enjoy the status of an economically and politically specially privileged class.
Ninth, although it would bring about the politically radical end of separating private banks from the government—which “the financial community” would vehemently oppose—adoption of an alternative gold currency would not expose America to the economic equivalent of “mutual assured destruction”. At present, any attempt to reform the monetary and banking systems “from the top down” can likely be thwarted by the bankers’ threat to precipitate an economic collapse. “Yes”, the bankers warn, “you can destroy us. But, more importantly, we can destroy you. If we go down, we will take the economy with us. Without us, you will have no currency, no credit, and thereby no
means of maintaining a high level of economic activity. So we have you by the throat. There is nothing you can do but to continue to allow us to loot society, and then to bail us out when our schemes threaten to implode or explode.” With an alternative gold currency, however, monetary reform would not come “from the top down”, by attempting to abolish the Federal Reserve System at one fell swoop and thereby throwing the economy into chaos. Rather, reform would come gradually and systematically “from the bottom up”, by introducing a sound currency into the free market on a State-by-State basis, in free competition with the Federal Reserve System. If the banking cartel and its clients should respond aggressively, they would merely hoist themselves on their own
pétard, because in any State which had adopted an alternative currency the people would no longer be dependent upon the banks for currency. Whatever the bankers might then do in a destructive vein would only drive the market further and faster in the direction of the alternative currency. Rather than mutually assured destruction, such actions would bring about the bankers’ assured destruction.
Tenth, on the other hand, if adoption of an alternative currency on a State-by-State basis
showed promise, with more and more people using that currency to the exclusion of Federal Reserve Notes in more and more transactions, the banks would be forced to compete. At least some of them might try to generate a new currency “redeemable” in, or “backed” by, gold. Exactly how they might do this, or even if they could do it, one cannot predict, because such a new bank currency would have to be as secure as the alternative currency, which would require that it not be based on fractional reserves. Yet, if even some of the banks could move in that direction, it would tend to stabilize their system, and perhaps allow for its orderly long-term transformation or liquidation, rather than sudden collapse.

                                                                                21

Eleventh, to be sure, the adoption of an alternative gold currency would face political
hurdles. For example, adoption of gold as currency at the State level will be complicated by claims of the General Government to tax exchanges of gold for Federal Reserve Notes, and exchanges of gold for goods and services (which are now erroneously treated as “barter” transactions). In the midst of a nationwide economic breakdown, however, any State which adopted an alternative gold currency would be in an especially favorable bargaining position, and would probably be able to negotiate an accommodation with the United States Treasury. Even if prudence did not prevail at the bargaining table, the State could sue the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court,19 for their failures to maintain all United States currency at par—which now should be about $42-2/9 per ounce of gold, not some $1,300.00.20 With the publicity such a suit would receive in the context of the present economic crisis, the matter would become a political issue to end all political issues—in comparison to which President Andrew Jackson’s fight with the second Bank of the United States would appear to have been an exchange of pleasantries. Under such circumstances, would the Justices of the Supreme Court dare to rule that the States are not entitled to protect their own people from economic ruin caused by the incompetence or corruption of the politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, and financial manipulators in Washington, D.C., and New York
City? Would the Justices dare to deny the people the right to ward off these vampires with “a cross of gold”? And if the Justices did rule against the States’ attempt to bring about meaningful monetary reform, would not their obstructionism sweep away the very last shred of credibility in Washington, D.C.? In that event, would not the States and their citizens then put into action Nancy Reagan’s dictum—“Just say ‘No!’”—and simply refuse to comply with all demands from the General Government for payments of taxes that hindered the use of the alternative currency—and then back up those refusals in the most effective manner?21

19See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2: “In all Cases * * * in which a State 19 shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

20 See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5119(a) and 5117(b).

21 Actually, for numerous reasons, the Justices might be expected to rule in favor of the
States: First, (as explained above) they could simply fall back on judicial precedents favorable to the States. Second, they would surely recognize their own inability to correct the underlying problem in the course of overruling those precedents and deciding the cases against the States; whereas, in reliance on those precedents, the States could take actions that might have a favorable result. Third, the Justices would be inclined to view the entire matter as constituting a “political question” at the highest constitutional level—that is, between the States and their people, on the one side, and public officials in the General Government and their clients in special-interest groups, on the other side.
Ruling for the States would allow the parties to the dispute to settle it by political means, which as a practical matter would provide the only method for resolution of the controversy. Fourth, the Justices would want to avoid the loss of credibility that the Judiciary would suffer amongst the vast mass of Americans if the courts ruled against the States. And fifth, they would fear the severe economic, political, and social consequences which would undoubtedly arise if they denied the States a free hand, the present monetary and banking systems irretrievably collapsed, and no alternative currency was then available for the people’s use.

                                                                          22

So why are not more of the champions of sound money, limited government, and free markets actively promoting the adoption of an alternative gold currency?
The present economic crisis presents the best opportunity since 1932 for taking the steps
necessary and sufficient to free the American people from their thralldom to the Federal Reserve System and the vicious factions behind it. Under the pressure of this crisis, common people are finally awakening to their predicament, and sensing what needs to be done—because, as Samuel Johnson once observed, nothing focuses a man’s mind more sharply than his impending hanging. Moreover, this may be the last opportunity of its kind for a long time to come. For if “the financial community” can succeed in jury-rigging some supra-national global currency and central bank, the Ponzi scheme
of fiat currency can probably be kept inflated for another generation, until a final, utterly catastrophic breakdown sweeps across the entire world.

So, the American people must be convinced now—immediately, if not sooner—ahora
mismo—that this country’s economy cannot be restored by mere repair or renovation of the existing edifice of money and banking, but only by its total replacement. The present structure is rotten to its very foundations, and even below. It lacks the capacity to survive—and can claim no right to be saved. A new structure must be built from the ground up, on a new site, according to a different plan, with better workmen. If this can be accomplished, then for the first time in generations Americans, indeed all of mankind, will enjoy honest weights and measures in the monetary field—and with that reform, will have a realistic hope to restore honest commerce and honest politics as well.