As El G Grande observes, Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called “junk” food in schools, and to “put healthy food in” convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor.

It’s a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed. See how economics and freedom run up against statism and the loss of choice, as Gardner Goldsmith exposes the newest move by politicians to inject themselves into the dining choices of Americans!

It’s happening NOW, and we’re here to fight it on every level!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week, Congress debated a resolution directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will. This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.

First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan. Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict. Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops. But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan. Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.

In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.

Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation. Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force — to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 — is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?

Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home — not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.

[DoD photo by SSgt. Joshua Gipe, U.S. Army]

Welcome back to the Conspiracy!

This is a special presentation featuring Gardner Goldsmith, one that delves into some fundamental and, necessarily technical material about economics, but one that will serve to last a long time for anyone interested in markets.

Check it out, as El G Grande explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become “irrational” and why claims by the same politicians that government can help “fix” markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.

A great production for anyone interested in discovering the fundamentals of free markets and how they work better than government policies.

Visit us at www.libertyconspiracy.com!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Join the members of the Liberty Conspiracy as they discuss issues ranging from the “Incorporation Doctrine” and gun rights, to the NBA, to protests conducted at military funerals, protests that are being challenged by government, and which will be heard by the philosopher kings in the U.S. Supreme Court.

All these items are discussed, and more, by Citizen X, Furb, Gard, and Ziggy, who are just part of the shadowy group of libertarians who comprise the world-wide phenomenon of the Liberty Conspiracy!

Join us at www.libertyconspiracy.com!
Join X at www.adventuresofcitizenx.com
Join Furb at www.freedombookclub.com
Join Zig at www.libertyhub.com

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

When neoconservative Ben Stein accused Congressman Ron Paul of being antisemitic for merely wanting to ask WHY Islamic terrorists want to attack the civilians living under western governments that have meddled in the Mideast, the members of the Conspiracy could not sit by silently.

In this production, Gardner Goldsmith and the Zigster discuss the injection of UK and US interests in the Mideast, and how critically studying such activity is NOT antisemitic.

We hope you enjoy this production. It’s timely and offers a great deal of historical perspective!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Dive into the ring of political-philosophical disputation with the Liberty Conspiracy. The Conspiracy fights for the individual and recognizes the primacy of individual liberty. We don’t fool around, and we don’t stop.

We mix intellect and creativity. We combine respect for our neighbor’s right to be free with the knowledge that there are many others like us who need to have their voices heard.

In this production, Gardner Goldsmith, Founder of the Conspiracy, reveals many of the myths and lies behind Barack Obama’s push for medical fascism. Then, he reveals the shocking attitude of Tom Brokaw, who believes government health plans are good, and that those very same medical plans should restrict expenditures on “the elderly.”

Check this out, it’s a pretty powerful presentation from El G Grande.

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census — like so many government programs — has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.

But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home — just to name a few examples.

From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is — why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?

The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.

However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.

It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.

Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.

If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

Welcome back to the Conspiracy. In this audio production, Gardner Goldsmith offers a long-lasting lesson on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the so-called “incorporation doctrine.” He takes the leap point of the recent lawsuit challenging the city of Chicago’s ban on firearms, and extends his analysis to the Bill of Rights and even to scholars who miss some major points when it comes to understanding the wording and dynamic working of the Constitution of the U.S. (which, by the way, Gard believes does not even go far enough in defending his freedom).

It’s a production that we hope will have a lot of value and that you’ll recommend to your friends.

Check it out, as Strongbad would say!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week I had the opportunity to bring up spending and transparency in two important hearings. On Wednesday I questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on some highly questionable uses of funds at the Federal Reserve, and on Thursday I asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about exorbitant spending at the State Department.

It is extremely important to continue bringing these issues up, especially in light of our difficult economic times, when so many are out of work, as I saw up close in my district at the Oceans of Opportunity Job Fair in Galveston two weeks ago. Those who are working live with the fear of losing their jobs as they struggle to pay bills. Meanwhile, Washington is talking of increasing their taxes, something voters were promised, clearly and adamantly, would not happen in this administration.

Government also struggles with money, but the struggle centers on how to get more of your money into government coffers. Rather than expanding the Federal budget in the face of economic downturn, we should be focusing on eliminating waste and being the very best stewards of public funds that we can possibly be. Most businesses have had to streamline and cut back in order to survive, and so it is only fair for our government to do the same.

Instead, the State Department is building a $1 billion embassy in London, the most expensive ever built. The plans even include surrounding it with a moat! I asked the Secretary of State about this massive expenditure, and she claimed the funds for this were coming from the sale of other properties. If money can be saved, then save it! Don’t spend it on such an extravagant structure overseas when people back home can’t find jobs or pay bills. Not only that, but the administration has committed to doubling foreign aid. That is one promise that is likely to be kept, despite our economic crisis.

I asked Chairman Bernanke about Federal Reserve agreements with foreign central banks and if he had had any conversations about bailing out Greece, which he flatly denied. However, he recently announced that the Federal Reserve will be looking into Goldman Sachs’ derivative agreements with Greece. Goldman Sachs, as we know, has “too big to fail” status with the Fed, so it is conceivable that any Greece-related catastrophic losses at Goldman Sachs will once again be passed on to taxpayers.

Perhaps most sinister are the revelations in Robert Auerbach’s book Deception and Abuse at the Fed that $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein in the 80’s — money that allowed Iraq to build up its military machine to fight Iran prior to the first Gulf War, the very machine turned against our brave men and women within just a few years! I agree with Bernanke’s characterization of this — it is indeed “bizarre” to think that Americans at the Federal Reserve could engage in this type of behavior, which a some have called “criminal.” However, Professor Auerbach served as a banking committee investigator, and as an economist at the Treasury Department and at the Federal Reserve. His claims are hardly without merit. In fact, they are solidly backed by court rulings and other evidence.

The lack of accountability and transparency in our leaders on government spending is appalling. We simply must keep pressing these issues and voicing our objections if we are ever to reverse our failed policies.

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement for the Record

Madame Speaker, I would like to enter into the record the following letter from Professor Robert D. Auerbach, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. This letter provides additional information regarding remarks I made at yesterday’s Financial Services Committee Humphrey-Hawkins hearing, remarks which Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke categorized as “bizarre.”

Thank you Congressman Ron Paul for bringing these important facts to the public’s attention.

I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response.

BERNANKE: “Well, Congressman, these specific allegations you’ve made I think are absolutely bizarre, and I have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely like what you just described.”

The evidence Congressman Ron Paul mentioned is well documented in my recent book, Deception and Abuse at the Fed (University of Texas Press: 2008). The head of the Federal Reserve bureaucracy should become familiar with its dismal practices.

First, consider the Fed’s coverup of the source of the $6300 in hundred dollar bills found on the Watergate burglars when they were arrested at approximately 2:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972 after they had broken into the Watergate offices of the Democratic Party. Five days after the break-in, June 22, at a board of directors’ meeting of officials at the Philadelphia Fed Bank, it was recorded in the minutes [shown on page 23 of my book] that false or misleading information had been provided to a reporter from the Washington Post about the $6,300. Bob Woodward told me he thought he was the Washington Post reporter who had made the phone inquiry. The reporter “had called to verify a rumor that these bills were stolen from this Bank” according to the Philadelphia Fed minutes. The Philadelphia Fed Bank had informed the Board on June 20 that the notes were “shipped from the Reserve Bank to Girard Trust Company in Philadelphia on April 3, 1972.” The Washington Post was incorrectly informed of “thefts but told they involved old bills that were ready for destruction.”

The Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Author Burns not only kept the Fed from getting entangled in the Watergate coverup, which the Fed’s actions had assisted, it allowed false statements about bills the Fed knew were issued by the Philadelphia Fed Bank to stand uncorrected. Blocking information from the Senate and House Banking Committees [letters shown in my book, Chapter 2] and issuing false information during a perilous government crisis imposed huge costs on the public that had insufficient information to hold the Fed officials accountable for what they had withheld from the Congress. Had the deception been discovered the Fed chairmen following Burns may have been forced to rapidly implement some real transparency to restore the Fed’s credibility. That would have reduced or eliminated many of the lies, deceptions, and corrupt practices that are described in my book.

The second subject brought up by Congressman Ron Paul is the exposure of faulty examinations of the Federal Reserve of a foreign bank in Atlanta, Georgia through which $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein that a Federal Judge found to be part of United States active support for Iraq in the 1980s.

On November 9, 1993, several federal marshals brought a prisoner, Christopher Drogoul, into my office at the Rayburn House Office Building of the U.S. House of Representatives. The marshals removed the manacles. Drogoul took off his jump suit and changed into a shirt, tie, and business suit. He immediately looked like the manager of the Atlanta agency with domestic headquarters in New York City of Banca Nazionale. Drogoul had come to testify about a “scheme prosecutors said he masterminded that funneled $5.5 billion in loans to Iraq’s Hussein through BNL’s Atlanta operation. Some of the loans allegedly were used to build up Iraq’s military and nuclear arsenals in the years preceding the first Gulf War.”¹

Drogoul’s “‘off book’ BNL-Atlanta funding to Iraq began in 1986 as financing for products under Department of Agriculture programs.”² The loans allegedly had been authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since Drogoul told the committee he was merely a tool in an ambitious scheme by the United States, Italy, Britain and Germany to secretly arm Iraq in their 1980-88 war, the testimony was politically contentious and unproven. He was sentenced in November 1993 to 37 months in prison and he had already served 20 months awaiting his sentencing hearing.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Tidwell found that the United States had actively supported Iraq in the 1980s by providing it with government-guaranteed loans even though it wasn’t creditworthy. The judge said such policies “clearly facilitated criminal conduct.”³

Gonzalez was drawn to Drogoul’s answer about the Fed examiner who had visited his Atlanta operation. Gonzalez said that:

“At the November 9, 1993 Banking Committee hearing I asked Christopher Drogoul, the convicted official of the Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro agency branch in Atlanta, Georgia, how the Federal Reserve Bank examiners could miss billions of dollars of illegal loans, most of which ended up in the hands of Hussein.”

Mr. Drogoul stated:

“The task of the Fed [bank examiner] was simply to confirm that the State of Georgia audit revealed no major problems. And thus, their audit of BNL usually consisted of a one or two-day review of the state of Georgia’s preliminary results, followed by a cup of espresso in the manager’s office.”

Gonzalez was appalled at the of lack of effective examination of a little storefront bank and also appalled by the gifts exchanged by officers of the New York Federal Reserve and the regulated banks in New York City where the main U.S. office of BNL was located. A description of what followed is in my book.

The Fed voted in 1995 to destroy the source transcripts of its policy making committee that had been sent to National Archives and Records Administration. Chairman Alan Greenspan had the committee vote on this destruction, telling the members: “I am not going to record these votes because we do not have to. There is no legal requirement.” (p. 104 in my book.) Greenspan thus removed any fingerprints on this act of record destruction. Donald Kohn, who is now Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, answered some questions I had sent to Chairman Greenspan about this destruction. Kohn replied in a letter on November 1, 2001 to me at the University of Texas that they had destroyed the source records for 1994, 1995 and 1996, they did not believe it to be illegal and there was no plan to end this practice. That is one reason why the Federal Reserve audit supported by Congressman Ron Paul is needed. The Fed must stop destroying its records.

Robert Auerbach is Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. He was an economist with the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee during the tenure of four Federal Reserve Chairmen: Arthur Burns, William Miller, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. Auerbach also served as an economist in the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Domestic Monetary Affairs during the first year of the Ronald Reagan administration and as a financial economist with the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Auerbach has been a professor of economics at the American University in Washington, D.C. (1976-83), and a professor of economics and finance at the University of California-Riverside (1983-93). He has written numerous articles, and two textbooks in banking and financial markets. He received two Masters degrees in economics, one from the University of Chicago and one from Roosevelt University, where he studied under Abba Lerner, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where he studied under Milton Friedman.

1 Marcy Gordon, “Banker Imprisoned in BNL Case Tells Story to House Committee,” The Associated Press, November 9, 1993.

2 U.S. Newswire: “Former Executive of Atlanta Agency of Italian-Owned Bank Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy”, from U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, June 2, 1992.

3 Peter Mantius, “Drogoul given 37 months Judge in BNL case also blasts actions of U.S. prosecutors,” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, December 10, 1993, Section A, p. 12.

The National Taxpayers Union has once again recognized Congressman Ron Paul as a “Taxpayers’ Friend” in its 2009 ratings of Congress.

The award is presented to those Members who achieve an “A” grade in NTU’s annual Rating of Congress. The Rating, which is based on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy, assigns a “Taxpayer Score” to each Member of Congress that indicates his or her support for reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.

“I take my mission to fight for taxpayers very seriously, especially in times like these when money is so tight and people are struggling to pay their bills. The cost of government is immoral and unjust and I am working hard in Washington to change that. It is nice to see others, like the NTU, join me in that fight and recognize my efforts,” stated Congressman Paul.

In 2009, only 55 lawmakers attained scores sufficient to win the “Taxpayers’ Friend Award” (earning at least 90 percent in the House or Senate). Meanwhile, 267 Senators and Representatives captured the title of “Big Spender” for posting “F” grades (scores of 15 percent or less in the House and 16 percent or less in the Senate).

“Congressman Paul’s pro-taxpayer score of 96 percent was one of the best in the entire Congress,” NTU President Duane Parde stated. “By voting time and again to reduce federal spending, taxes, and debt, Ron Paul has led by example in the fight to defend overburdened taxpayers across the country.”

["Ron Paul Smile" photo by Richard DeYoung; CC BY 2.0]

YES! We’ve got the lowdown on liberty, gang! Join El G Grande as he gathers around the table for our first CABAL group production! In this audio, Gard, Malcolm and Adam discuss the news that Massachusetts cops are arresting people who film them doing misdeeds. Nothing like “serving and protecting” huh? Then, the Conspiracy team looks at the news that music mega corporations are trying to shut down audio streaming sites. Can you say, “shoot yourself in the foot,” music corporations? Incredible! It’s all here and at www.libertyconspiracy.com! Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Is the Timelord a socialist, or is he, as one would expect, a libertarian who believes in the primacy of the individual? Ziggy offers his thoughts on a subject that has recently become a hot topic of debate in many countries. BIG THANKS ZIGGY!!!!!!!!!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week marked the one year anniversary of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, passing into law. While the debate over its success has been focused on whether or not it is stimulating the economy and on various questionable uses of funds, in my estimation this legislation is accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish — grow the government.

Those of us concerned about the ever increasing level of government debt gasped at the astonishing $787 billion cost estimates for this bill. True to form it has actually cost 10 percent more at $862 billion. We heard over and over that government could not sit around and do nothing while people lost their jobs and houses. The administration claimed that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus bill passed. Now, a year later, the government estimates that unemployment is over 10 percent. The real number is closer to 20 percent. It appears that those promises were total fabrications in order to close the deal.

In any case, the American people know that more government spending obviously equals more government. If the goal was to strengthen the private sector, Congress would have allowed businesses and individuals to keep more of their own money through meaningful tax cuts. Outrageously, the administration claims that they did “cut taxes” by reducing withholding, and that they have stimulated the private economy by increasing the amount of money in every worker’s paycheck. What they fail to mention is they did not change the total amount of taxes due. This means that all that money not withheld from paychecks will add up to a big unpleasant surprise when returns are filed this year. Many tax preparers are already seeing shocked taxpayers having to come up with big checks to the government when they normally expect a refund. Stimulus, indeed!

The administration also claims that thousands of jobs have been created or saved by this massive spending bill, but these are just more government jobs, and counterproductive in the long run. Funding for the public sector necessarily comes at the expense of an overtaxed private economy. But, it makes sense that government would seek to expand its payroll since every new bureaucrat becomes a likely advocate for big government, when an increasing number of Americans are demanding the opposite. But the more the burden, the closer the government parasite comes to killing its host.

Rather than learning the lessons of the past year, the administration is moving full-speed ahead to do even more economic damage. With the stimulus bill set as a precedent and victory declared, another “jobs” bill is in the works. And, in order to address the unavoidable issues of our massive deficit, the administration has named a bi-partisan commission to find ways to decrease it. Tax increases on the middle class are notoriously back “on the table,” exposing that campaign promise as another instance of merely saying what the people wanted to hear. If the obvious solution to our spending problems was seriously put forth, that is, getting back to the constitutional limitations of government, I would be shocked. More likely, this will be a tactic to increase taxes and spending in a way that passes the political buck.

["Obama Condom" photo by Justin Grimes; CC BY-SA 2.0]

Join our old friend Citizen X as he explores the history of the U.S. Constitution from a skeptic’s perspective. Using Boston T. Party’s Hologram of Liberty as a guide, we find that, far from being a limiter on government, the Constitution has been the facilitator of big government. Was this an accident or was it by design? The answer may surprise you.

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]