The violence on the Mexican border has proved to be insufficient incentive motivation for the federal government to protect American borders. Instead, it is now prompting the Obama administration to call for an unmanned border crossing with Mexico in order to upgrade security. The Blaze reports: This hardly seems a time the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But in this rugged, remote West Texas terrain where wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy, federal authorities are touting a proposal to open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.
The Federal Reserve has joined an open conspiracy with its other central-banking buddies to steal several trillion dollars from my grandchildren. The plan is to steal not just from my grandchildren, but from all of us. Each American anywhere who measures the value of his savings, the pay he receives, the stocks he owns and every other possession he has in dollars — the currency that is created and controlled by our central bank — is a target. Every time the Federal Reserve turns on the printing presses and creates “money” out of thin air (or, more accurately, creates a digital entry on a computer screen), it reduces the value of all the money that is already in circulation. The equation is simple: The more fiat (unbacked) currency that is created, the less each individual currency unit is worth. The creation of fiat money is the only reason for inflation. Rising prices do not cause inflation, as the powers that be would like you to believe. You see, if you accept that false explanation, you will put the blame for rising prices on businesses — not on government, where it belongs.
Americans are quickly getting poorer as the much-touted economic “recovery” remains elusive. Household wealth plummeted by more than four percent from July to September according to a report released last week by the Federal Reserve, marking the steepest drop since 2008 and the second quarterly decline in a row. That represents an average loss of about $21,000 per household in just three months. At the end of the third quarter, household wealth plunged by $2.4 trillion, from a total of about $60 trillion down to slightly less than $57.5 trillion. The dramatic drop in net worth — the value of all assets minus total debts and liabilities -—was led by still-declining housing prices and crashing stock values. Despite wild money printing by the Fed in recent years, home values are not expected to recover any time soon. During the third quarter, American real estate assets lost about $100 billion from the previous quarter. And banks are still sitting on an unknown but huge number of foreclosed properties expected to keep prices depressed for years to come. Stocks performed terribly last quarter, too, though they have recovered some of those losses so far. The S&P500 Index lost around 14 percent from July to September. And according to the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, equities shed $2.6 trillion for the quarter.
The current political debate over “jobs” ignores a vital component of jobs and the economy: Government make-work jobs are simply another form of welfare; jobs produced by the private sector that help the economy are productive jobs. In places like North Dakota, where the economy is now benefiting from an oil boom, the importance of genuinely productive labor has been understood from the beginning of frontier America. The winter wheat farmers of the Dakotas led an unglamorous like of rising before dawn, eating a big breakfast by a hard-working wife who herself had worked long, hard days, and then turning the land into crops. These families created wealth; they work produced goods and services that people wanted. Perhaps no job in America is more important than generating energy. Yet many parts of West Virginia today have high unemployment because the environmental regulations have made it virtually impossible or cost-prohibitive to extract coal, despite the fact that our nation has a huge reserve of this proven fuel. Oil, however, is considered the most vital fossil fuel for our nation. Increasing the domestic production of oil would allow our nation to pursue a foreign policy guided only by our wish to remain independent, free, and peaceful. Buying more of our own oil, and less foreign oil, would lower America’s balance of trade as well. Expanding the supply of oil also would put downward pressure on the price of this vitally important product.
The December 10 Yahoo/ABC News presidential debate in Iowa revealed a strong swing of candidates over to the issues and leadership of Representative Ron Paul. "I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition," Paul told moderators George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer. "Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul sparred over the issue of Gingrich's $1.6 million in consulting fees for mortgage giant Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2007 in an ABC News Iowa debate December 10. Asked why his campaign released an advertisement accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy," Rep. Paul stressed that Gingrich "received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. Now, Freddie Mac is essentially a government organization. While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac gets bailed out by the taxpayer, so in a way, Newt, I think you probably got some of our taxpayers' money." He added, "I think this is something that people ought to know about." Paul, whose advertisement stressed that Gingrich had switched positions on many issues, suggested that he alone had been consistent in defending the U.S. Constitution over many years in Congress: "If we're looking for a consistent position, I think there'd be a little bit of trouble of anybody competing with me for consistency."
In his interview at King World News, James Turk, founder of GoldMoney and author of The Collapse of the Dollar, noted in his travels around Europe that “there is one common trait, regardless of which country I am in: people are really frightened about the possibility of the collapse of the euro. Money continues to move out of the European banking system, which explains why central banks stepped in with some money printing last week.”
Investors are bullish on Europe yet again after a two-day summit in Brussels produced a triumphant agreement on the part of the 17 eurozone member nations to get their collective fiscal house in order. The options for Europe going into the conference were stark — at least, according to the doomsday rhetoric emanating from European leaders and media commentators on both side of the Atlantic. Failure to reach the foreordained agreement at Brussels would have been “a luxury we cannot afford” opined French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who added that “maintenance of the eurozone is our duty. We have no other choice.” Well, actually, the other choice, according to the powers that be, was continental and global financial ruin. “Merkel and Sarkozy have been clear — back the plan or face catastrophe. It is a simple as that,” wrote CNN anchor Richard Quest. “The unfortunate point, often overlooked, is that the eurozone countries really have little choice. The euro doesn't work as currently constituted (it never has). They either change it or the project will collapse.” And a collapse of the eurozone would probably reverberate worldwide, possibly leading to a financial panic that would dwarf the 2008 debacle. Cowed into submission, the eurozone countries feverishly agreed to subject their fiscal policies to international supervision, with the EU empowered to impose fines and sanctions for failure to keep budget deficits essentially at zero and other transgressions.
Senator Rand Paul, a self-described representative of the Tea Party, worries that the small progress toward the restoration of limited government may be "set back" by the upcoming Republican presidential nomination. In a letter to the Des Moines Register, the son of GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul set forth his two goals for striving to protect the "conservative movement" from being hampered by the nomination of a candidate with "a different set of ideas and values." The first of Senator Paul's two goals is to "prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next." Although certainly a priority for the Senator, the rest of the letter is devoted to details of his second goal: electing a "constitutional[ly] conservative president in 2012." An urgent issue for the Republican Party and the United States is the election of a president who will remain faithful to his Oath of Office from the moment his hand is placed on the Bible on Inauguration Day. While Senator Paul admits that anyone on the current roster of Republican candidates would be an improvement over Barack Obama, he calls out the two men leading in the polls — Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — for not representing "the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs...."
Nothing like politics more readily reveals man’s intellectual and moral vices. If ever we were in need of proof of the truth of this proposition, the Republican Party’s presidential primary race supplies it in spades. The Democratic Party’s penchant for duplicity has long been noted by most readers of this column. That it seeks “the fundamental transformation” of our country into something bordering on a socialist utopia will be denied only by those who choose to characterize its prime objective in other terms. The ugly truth is that the Democratic Party of which President Barack H. Obama is the titular head abhors the America conceived by our Founders, an America within which liberty is the cardinal value. The United States Constitution — the secret to this liberty — is a burden from which Democrats seek relief, for as long as it remains, it stands as a monumental impediment to their agenda, a systematic program that involves nothing more or less than the repeal of the Revolution of 1776.