The Creature From Jekyll Island: Book Review

Never before has a book had such a profound effect on my way of thinking and my perception of the world we live in.

The book is a fascinating journey through history, outlining how the role of banking, money, and powerful individuals have influenced events and outcomes. G. Edward Griffin makes a very compelling case for abolishing the federal reserve entirely.

Briefly: If you want to know who is really in charge of nations, if you want to know who has influenced our leaders to make the decisions they do, if you want to discover the truth about how our money system really works and who benefits/loses as a result, if you want to discover the true motives behind monumental events in American history such as the Great Depression and World War I, and if you want to know and change what the future holds in store for this great nation and even the world, then READ THIS BOOK!

The seven reasons for abolishing the Fed are emphasized in this book. They are (from p588):

1. The Fed is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives
2. The Fed is a cartel operating against the public interest
3. The Fed is a supreme instrument of usury
4. The Fed generates our most unfair tax [inflation]
5. The Fed encourages war
6. The Fed destabilizes the economy
7. The Fed is an instrument of totalitarianism
   

Thus, it is my belief that abolishing the Fed could be the single most important step toward restoring liberty in America, and everyone would be well-served to read this book. Did I mention you should read this book?

Caution: Those who are 'awakened' are prone to never go to sleep again! :)

The Socialist Advantage

There is an inherent advantage that the socialists have over advocates of individual freedom, and that is the illusion of compassion for the afflicted.

Just think about it. A socialist (that is, one who would see the government provide all goods and services for society) spouts off rhetoric filled with promises of handouts and free meals for all. How can they be wrong? After all, only they have compassion for the poor. Only they want to feed the hungry. Only they want to ensure medical care for all. And only they promise a house for every family, guaranteed jobs and wages for all, and grandiose 'robin hood' schemes to steal from the rich and give to the poor. And the sad part is, that is precisely what gets them elected.

What believers in this philosophy fail to see, is that these are all ways to fix the effect of the problem, rather than tackle the source. Take, for instance, the current "credit crunch." Politicians are quick to point the fingers at the big bad predatory lenders, or the greedy real estate speculators. But they fail to see the problem: the artificially low interest rates emanating from the federal reserve.

The result is always the same. The federal government gets involved, and proceeds to either exacerbate the problem or create entirely new ones, while expanding regulation and increasing its control.

Another example is the skyrocketing health care costs in America. Rather than examining the cause of our woes, such as the HMO Act of 1973, which provided for the rapid expansion of HMO's; the continuing influence that drug and health care companies have over lawmakers; the federally mandated free emergency health care for illegal immigrants in border states, the socialists speak of expanding government involvement and mandating a healthy society by force. The result will inevitably be the lowering of health care quality and massively increased government spending.

But the bigger picture is this: We, as Americans, must see through the socialist promises of a federally-mandated utopia. There are no free lunches. When these politicians seek to provide to the poor, the hungry, the needy, it's always at the expense of somebody else. And it's always at the expense of individual liberty.

Fiat vs. Freedom

Fiat money is the enemy of the free society. Period.

History is littered with examples of failed and worthless paper money, wreaking economic chaos wherever it was implemented. Those in control of the money supply benefit the most, reaping the rewards of their cash machine. In the end, the common man always loses.

But what does money have to do with freedom?

In short, EVERYTHING. I submit that a currency backed 100% by gold, silver, or any commodity is the free society's best friend, and thus fiat currency is its worst enemy. You see, when you have fiat money controlled by a central government (or in our case, the Federal Reserve System and friends), deficit spending is actually possible. Endless government borrowing of fiat money allows politicians to implement any program they see fit, and squeeze in any little pet project they may have. The natural consequence is, of course, that the government grows larger and larger. And, it is true that the amount of freedom in society is directly and inversely proportional to the size of government.

Think about this for a second. The bigger the size and scope government, the less freedom there is to be had. In America today, you cannot open a business without going through paperwork, permits, licensing, fees, etc. Zoning laws dictate where you can operate, and what you can operate. The DHS seeks to prevent attacks across the nation. How else can this be accomplished except by monitoring, well, EVERYTHING? FEMA the money pit, in its mission to help those in a disaster zone, stifles local efforts and offers no real solutions (not to mention violating the 2nd ammendment). The FCC dictates what can and cannot be said or shown on radio and television through its fines and penalties. The Department of Education tells us how, when, and what our children will learn, and sets a national standard of mediocrity. A large government made possible through fiat money is the enemy of freedom.

Now imagine a world where sound money rules the land. There would be no subsidies, federal welfare programs, less regulation, and a strong middle class. ALL, I repeat, ALL money for federal programs and agencies would have to be taken directly from tax revenues. The people would not stand for ultra-high taxes, and thus, government would be reduced to its only constitutional duty: To protect individual liberty and defend the constitution. The nation would not go to war unless it was absolutely necessary. Our children would be educated by our standards, not some bureaucrat's idea of a good education. Freedom of the individual would rule the land. A free market would deliver goods and services more efficiently than any government regulation could ever enforce. That, my friends, is a utopian dream.

Abolish fiat money in America, and a return to freedom, peace, and prosperity will follow.

Youtube Debates and the Media

CNN held a youtube GOP debate yesterday. Some thoughts.

First comes the question of the supposed "user participation." While it is a step up from the usual questions coming from the host network's active pundits, it leaves something to be desired. What good does it do to ask for thousands of these video submissions, when the network has the absolute and final say about what gets asked in the end? Sure, a user-selected set of questions may have the lets-pick-the-most-ludicrous-videos-as-a-joke effect, but I tend to have more faith in the internet community than that.

No, what I saw yesterday was a far cry from CNN airing "the people's questions." It was merely a way to give the illusion that the will of the people was being addressed, while strengthening what the media already does very well: shaping public opinion. Now, in the name of the people's medium (the internet), they ask the questions they would have liked to have asked anyways, except behind the mask of the average joe.

Example? Ron Paul's question regarding a possible North American Union, starting with a superhighway connecting Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The video shown attempted to marginalize Paul by marginalizing his supporters. The fact that the superhighway is real and the plan is already underway is irrelevant to the media. The perception, at least to those that are uninformed (lots in that particular auditorium), is that Paul's supporters are wacky and so is he. An interesting choice of question indeed.

Also, notice the speaking times for each candidate during the debate:

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Giuliani -- 16:38, during 20 times
Romney -- 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson -- 12:16, during 12 times
McCain -- 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee -- 10:00, during 11 times
Paul -- 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter -- 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo -- 3:49, during 7 times

Is it any wonder that they are generally in proportion with the national polls? It brings up an interesting question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken being a candidate's high poll numbers and the egg being media exposure of the candidate. I submit that the media covers certain candidates fairly and others, well, unfairly. It labels some as fringe extremists and portrays others as having a broad coalition of support. It will also choose exclude coverage for some altogether! The result is a feedback loop of success for the chosen ones and an uphill battle for the unfortunate.

This brings me to the larger question of the media. Since when is it the duty of TV networks to decide who gets the bulk of attention and who doesn't? The vast amount of political power wielded by these networks is unbelievable. This is probably something most people reading this will already know, however. The question is, what can we do about it? Not much. Educate yourself and those around you. See through the subtle suggestions. Don't rely on the perception of popular support or opposition to shape your views. Doing so will inevitably lead to sheepdom.

Introduction

Welcome to the Liberty Movement. Stay tuned for all things freedom!