Will Texas Politicians Ever Grow A Pair?

April 30, 2011

Will Texas Let EPA’s Lizard Choke West Texas Oil Industry To Death?

from Texas Tenth Amendment Center

(Editor’s Note: It appears that there is no affront…no violation of individual property rights…no Federal intrusion into State sovereignty…no blatant power grab by Washington…no level of tyranny…that the Austin politicians will stand and fight. When it comes down to secession and Texas Independence, Texans will have to look to non-politicians to become a new nation.The EPA has no jurisdiction in a New Texas.)

A three-inch lizard that thrives in desert conditions could shut down oil and gas operations in portions of Southeast New Mexico and in West Texas, including the state’s top two oil producing counties.

Called the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, it is being considered for inclusion on the federal Endangered Species listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A public rally to oppose this move is being sponsored by the Permian Basin Petroleum Association on Tuesday, April 26 at Midland Center beginning at 5 p.m. Congressman Mike Conaway will speak, as will Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson; other public officials have been invited.

”We are very concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service listing,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the PBPA, noting the service also has proposed listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken next year. “The wolf at the door is the lizard; we’re concerned listing it would shut down drilling activity for a minimum of two years and as many as five years while the service determines what habitat is needed for the lizard. That means no drilling, no seismic surveys, no roads built, no electric lines.”

The move would impact activity in Andrews, Crane, Gaines, Ward and Winkler counties in Texas and Chaves, Eddy, Lea and Roosevelt counties in New Mexico.

Not only would the move impact oil and gas operations but agriculture, Shepperd noted, shutting down agricultural activities like grazing and farming — “anything that disturbs the habitat.” While the industry is perfectly willing to undertake conservation measures to protect the lizard’s habitat, he said, naming it an endangered species “would shut down activity and be devastating not only to Permian Basin economies but to the national economy. We are the one bright spot month after month; in our economic turnaround, the main driver is the oil and gas industry.”

The concern is, he said, that the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks enough data to conclude that the tiny lizard is endangered and is basing its action on flawed methodology. “They didn’t spend enough time looking for them or the right technique to find them,” he said.

In New Mexico, where the lizard can be found on both private and public lands, Shepperd said a number of companies have entered into voluntary agreements to help conserve the lizard’s habitat, mitigate threats to the lizard and remediate any damage while continuing to operate. He said he wants the same to happen in Texas. The association favors such joint agreements between the federal government and landowners to protect the lizard’s habitat while allowing drilling operations to continue responsibly.

”The point is, we think the best way is for land owners and industry actually on the ground where the lizards are, who know how to protect the lizard, to be in charge instead of the feds putting up ‘Do Not Enter’ signs on every gatepost,” Shepperd said.

A sign of hope is that four counties — Lea, Andrews, Ward and Winkler, and the town of Monahans, have passed resolutions demanding to have standing during the comment phase, which ends May 16. Under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, Shepperd said, the federal government is required to work with local governmental entities when they make such a request.

”This will enable them to bring in the economic impact,” he said. “We feel like the counties demanding to be part of the process should require the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with them to develop a reasonable conservation process that we all can live with.”

Secession As A Continuum

April 29, 2011

Learn practical truths about secession by watching this video presentation.

Jason Sorens is the Founder of the Free State Project. He delivered this presentation at the Roatan Honduras Event sponsored by Universidad Francisco Marraquin. Jason is a PhD. from Yale, and Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University at Buffalo (NY). This presentation takes about 21 minutes, and is worth your time.

Simply click on the link below and view the presentation.

Secession As A Contimuum

Smugglers As Heroes

April 28, 2011

by Walter E. Williams

(Editor’ Note: While I agree with Dr. Williams, he hesitates to take his argument to the most logical, most widespread smuggling enterprise of all…recreational drugs. If he is to remain true to his assertions, he would have to say that he supports the smuggling of drugs into the USA. What is the moral difference between John Hancock’s molasses and cocaine, heroin and marijuana? The “War on Drugs” has been a disaster, and will never prevent the “voluntary exchange among individuals.”)

Smugglers are heroes of sorts. The essence of what a smuggler offers is: “Government tyrants want to either prevent or interfere with peaceable voluntary exchange among individuals. I can reduce the impact of that interference.” Let’s look at smuggling, keeping in mind that not everything illegal is immoral and not everything legal is moral.

Leading up to our War of Independence, the British, under the Navigation Acts, had levied taxes on a wide range of imports. One of those taxes was on molasses imported from non-British islands. John Hancock, whose flamboyant signature graces our Declaration of Independence, had a thriving business smuggling an estimated 1.5 million gallons of molasses a year. His smuggling practices financed much of the resistance to British authority. In fact, a joke of the time was “Sam Adams writes the letters (to newspapers) and John Hancock pays the postage.”

Hancock’s smuggling, as well as that of many others, made the people of our nation better off by providing cheaper prices for molasses used for making rum. British oppressors were worse off by having lower tax revenues.

In 1920, the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States, went into effect. It had wide public support. In my opinion, no case can be made for stopping another person from enjoying beer, wine and whiskey. That’s oppression, but along came heroes to the rescue. The ink hadn’t dried on the 18th Amendment before smugglers started smuggling beer and whiskey from Canada and Mexico. Ships lined up along our shores, just beyond the three-mile limit, to off-load whiskey onto speedboats. Smugglers and bootleggers spared millions of Americans from do-gooder oppression.

While the smuggler qua smuggler is my hero, several important negative effects surround his activity. Smuggling is illegal. It becomes a sometimes-nasty criminal enterprise because those who engage in it tend to be people with an overall lower regard for the law. Since smuggling is illegal, disputes must be settled with guns and violence instead of courts. Plus, police and other public officials are corrupted. Worse of all is the reduced respect for laws by the public at large. After the 18th Amendment’s repeal, virtually all of the crime and corruption associated with Prohibition disappeared.

Not many Americans are aware of today’s big smuggling activity – cigarette smuggling. Confiscatory taxes that are as high as $7 a pack, in New York City, making one pack of cigarettes sell for $13, have encouraged a thriving smuggling business across our country. Like Prohibition, confiscatory tobacco taxes are popular with Americans.

A recent study by Michael LaFaive and Todd Nesbit of the Midland, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy titled “Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling” shows that states with the highest cigarette smuggling rates are those with the highest tobacco taxes such as Arizona (51.8 percent of the state’s total consumption are smuggled), New York (47.5 percent), Rhode Island (40.5 percent), New Mexico (37.2 percent) and California (36.3 percent).

Cigarette smuggling, like yesteryear’s whiskey smuggling, has become a livelihood for criminals. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has found that Russian, Armenian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Taiwanese and Middle Eastern (mainly Pakistani, Lebanese and Syrian) organized crime groups are highly involved in the trafficking of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes. What’s worse is that some of these groups use their earnings to provide financial assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. That means tax-hungry politicians and anti-tobacco zealots are providing the means for aid to America’s enemies.

The solution to cigarette smuggling, and the criminal activities associated with it, is to eliminate the confiscatory taxes. Unfortunately for tax-hungry politicians and anti-tobacco zealots, who see confiscatory taxes as a tool in their moral crusade against tobacco, only benefits count. For them, the costs of their agenda are irrelevant or secondary at best. And, as novelist C.S. Lewis put it, “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

Copyright © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Debunking Anti-Gold Propaganda

April 27, 2011

by Doug Casey

(Editor’s Note: We are discussing real money alot lately here at DumpDC. That’s because money makes the world go around. For any group of people to restore individual liberty and property rights in a new nation of their own, they will have to settle the issue of money first.

This is an excerpt from the article, and there is a link below it to continue reading the article.)

This objection is worth considering – for any asset. In fact, it’s critical. We can determine the price of almost anything fairly easily today, but figuring out its value is as hard as it’s ever been. From the founding of the U.S. until 1933, the dollar was defined as 1/20th of an ounce of gold. From 1933 it was redefined as 1/35th of an ounce. After the 1971 dollar devaluation, the official price of the metal was raised to $42.22 – but that official number is meaningless, since nobody buys or sells the metal at that price. More importantly, people have gotten into the habit of giving the price of gold in dollars, rather than the value of the dollar in gold. But that’s another subject.

Here’s the crux of the argument. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, a $20 bill was just a receipt for the deposit of one ounce of gold with the Treasury. The U.S. official money supply equated more or less with the amount of gold. Now, however, dollars are being created by the trillion, and nobody really knows how many more of them are going to be shazammed into existence.

It is hard to determine the value of anything when the inch marks on your yardstick keep drifting closer and closer together.

To Continue Reading The Article, CLICK HERE.

Doug Casey is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

Copyright © 2001 Casey and Associates

Secession And The Moral High Ground

April 26, 2011

Moral High Ground = Win

courtesy The Arctic Patriot

(Editor’s Note: I hear my friends at the Texas Nationalist Movement constantly state that their mission is the peaceful, legislative process of secession for Texas Independence. That seems to me to be the moral high ground of individual liberty. But is that the best way? Does it not by definition remove all non-peaceful methods from consideration? The TNM leadership states unequivocally that they are not a militia, and they are not. But any student of history will see that physical resistance happens quite regularly when groups of people secede. If you put a “Gun-Free Zone” sign in your front yard, what does it tell the bad guys in your neighborhood? Would not a reasoned, measured, careful discussion of the implications of the moral high ground be in order?

This article asks some really tough questions. I hope we are all mature enough to consider the ramifications of holding the moral high ground.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956)

I was taught to never choose to get into a fight that was not worth dying in. This has cost me superficial social “honor” at times, but has saved me a lot of trouble. It has also earned me respect at times, as well. This outlook has saved me from injury and suffering for the sake of largely meaningless social violence. If the fight isn’t worth it, I usually walk away. If I decide to engage in a fight, it is for survival, or I have no other option remaining. In this day and age, when people kill each other over parking places (as happened here recently), it’s often better to walk away, even if you’re armed.

I apply the same logic to our struggle for liberty, for freedom, for the principles our nation was founded on. Is it worth it? If it’s not really worth it, we should just walk away. Really. This is not a game. If it is worth it, it is a fight that needs to be won, and everything that inhibits or works against that ultimate victory should be discarded, burned, and thrown to the ground as rubbish.

I won’t waste your time arguing that the fight for liberty must be won, at all costs. To me, this is self evident. To the millions murdered under oppressive regimes in the last century, this is likely true as well. The march of government towards total control must be slowed and pushed back, whenever possible.

I will make a statement here, and I will spend the rest of the post attempting to back it up with my reasoning.

The only possible “Moral High Ground” in a fight worth winning is victory. Period.

Moral High Ground = Win.



First, let me clearly and unequivocally state that I am not a moral relativist. Then again, we all are, in a way. I would not kill a random person on the street, but I would kill a random enemy soldier on the battlefield. If that is moral relativism (and it is, possibly, to a degree), I am guilty. I will illustrate this point in a few minutes again, in the text of this article. You’ll know when it happens.

What I am not saying here is that the end justifies the means. I am saying that the end and the means are one and the same. This is important, as I am not preaching mass murder as a means to ensure victory. I am preaching, however, a hard message, a message that America preached in WW2’s closing days. Sometimes, dropping an atomic weapon on civilian targets is the most moral way to go.

This is important. Win. In a war where losing means you are dead or enslaved (the previously referred to “war worth fighting”), losing is the least moral outcome. Therefore, tying one’s hands in a way that impedes victory is an immoral act.

The concept of “Moral High Ground” is unique to man in nature. When a mother moose feels her calf is threatened, she fights. She wins or dies, that’s it. If she dies, so does her calf. That’s how she sees it; that’s how she fights. A mother moose is the most dangerous animal in Alaska, as many have unfortunately learned. It’s her calf, that’s why. Same with a sow grizzly. No questions, defeat is unacceptable. Nature does not know moral high ground, she knows life, and death. While I understand that we are not the same as animals, we are subject to the laws of nature. We cannot deny nature’s laws.

If we tie our hands in a manner that lessens the chance of victory, we are increasing the risk of losing. In a fight worth fighting, doing this is an immoral act.

The concept of holding the“moral high ground”, that is, maintaining moral superiority over one’s opponent in all or most cases, is at the very least, superfluous and/or frivolous. It could be looked at as chasing the wind, especially in cases where you and your opponent have radically different moral codes. The concept of a “moral high ground” assumes from the beginning that you and your opponent are on the same plane morally, and that your opponent is consciously choosing to “cheat”, or use dishonorable or “immoral means”, according to your moral code, to win a fight.

Enter the running guerrilla firefights in the opening days of the First American Revolution. Enter IEDs and urban sniping in Iraq, and similar attacks in Afghanistan and other theatres. I have lost friends to these methods, and have an acquaintance who lives with shrapnel in his body, forever, because of them. Who has the moral high ground in these cases? One side has the luxury of fighting “fairly” and “honorably” from a position of strength and superiority, the other is materially inferior and weaker.

In almost every force-on-force tactical engagement in the First Revolution where the Americans met the British upon an open field, in an upright, “fair”, tactical firefight, the British triumphed. In almost every force-on-force engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, American military forces trounce their opponents. The only realistic option remaining to the insurgents is to fight on via IEDs, or give it up altogether. You can bet British soldiers were every bit as frustrated and repulsed by the Americans’ tactics as our own troops are of IEDs today. The stronger force has the luxury of maintaining the illusion of “moral superiority”, yet this is actually counter to the interests of a “clean”, “humanitarian”, or “moral” way to fight. Maintaining the moral high ground is often the least moral course of action, as it prolongs the struggle and increases suffering. We owe our nation to an unfair fight that was often brutal, ugly, and involved very, very questionable methods at times.

How does this make sense? How can maintaining the “moral high ground” actually be the least moral course of action?

Can detonating a WMD/dirty bomb in a city full of hundreds of thousands of civilians possibly be a “moral high ground” action? NYC? Houston? Is nuking a civilian population center ever right? Is it? If it happened tomorrow in America to further Al-Qaeda’s cause with the least loss to their side, would you say that doing this allowed them the moral high ground?


But we did it not once, but twice in Japan, and most Americans would argue that it was an acceptable action. We committed the very act that we would decry, were it to happen to us. These atomic weapons were used after an intense six month campaign of horrific firebombing of defenseless Japanese cities. We are the only nation to have ever dropped nukes in anger, and they were dropped on large civilian population centers, both times. This act arguably violated international law, as it obviously falls into the category of “indiscriminate aerial bombardment of undefended cities” (see Dresden, as well). Why is this then acceptable to us, as Americans? It is first of all acceptable to us because it happened to “them”, the enemy. If San Francisco would have been nuked, ending the war in favor of Japan, every American would have been morally repulsed, while the Japanese would have rejoiced. It is acceptable because, to us, immolating, burning, and irradiating hundreds of thousands Japanese men, women, and children allowed us to end the war as quickly as possible, losing as few of us ( and them, coincidentally) as possible, as far as we can tell. An invasion of mainland Japan could have cost possibly millions of lives, and a year or more of pointless fighting to finish off an already defeated enemy. And that is the point. That is what it’s all about. In this, America committed a horrific act by any standard; yet this act ended the war. War is hell. This is not necessarily moral relativism, but war. War is immorality objectified. Any who partake cannot remain clean. It just is not possible.

The most moral manner in which to conduct a war or fight that is worth fighting is the way that allows your side to win as quickly as possible. Any prolonging of a war or a fight can only lead to more suffering and pain. If the war or fight you are about to engage in is not worth every possible effort to win, it may be that it really is not worth fighting for in the first place. Parallels can be drawn from the more recent situations the US military has found itself in. Witness our troops’ tied hands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that any way to fight a war, or are we just providing our enemies with targets? Are we sitting on the “moral high ground” there? And Vietnam…we fought so hard to keep the “high ground” there. Did we hold it? If we did, at what cost? By whose standard? Not by the dead Americans’ with their names on that long black wall. Not by the South Vietnamese tortured and killed after the communist takeover.

If a war or fight is worth winning, you’d better win. Stack the deck. If you can accept any chance whatsoever of losing, through conscious choice, it may be that the fight just isn’t worth it.

A “moral high ground”-based approach to warfare, as the US is currently trying to use in the Middle East, handicaps one’s troops, and restrains them from using the means necessary to secure victory. Victory is obtained only in the offense. Staying on the “moral high ground” is a wholly defensive posture.

Defeat, in a worthwhile cause, is the most undesirable condition, the ugliest possible “end”. If defeat is acceptable, the fight should not have been joined. I know that I am being repetitive, but this is the whole premise I am standing on. It is essential to understand, in my opinion.

In war, often the most moral and humane end is the one that comes the quickest. Hence, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Evil? Yes. The end result was better than mainland invasion, for all parties.
If things go to bad and then to worse, we had better drop notions of winning based on the virtues of our perceived “moral high ground”, as focusing on holding the moral high ground will only serve two purposes, i.e. limiting the ability to fight for a victorious end, and prolonging the struggle. Again I say, a fight worth fighting is a fight that must be won, at all costs.

I will leave you with this quote, which you have likely read before. Read it, and then think about how it may apply to us now and or in the future. People are great at gathering data and facts, but horrible at translating that into something usable. Translate what this man and millions of others have learned into something usable in your life:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Do you understand what he is talking about? Really? What is a “security operative”? Think about it. They have families, they are human. They are just doing their jobs, and might not have any clue about where the bus they load you on takes you. They are no more or less personally guilty than federal agents today, who arrest pregnant women on trumped up charges to pressure their husbands to comply. I know this happens. I have seen it. Some of you know what I mean. I know for sure that one of you has experienced this, almost exactly. They are perhaps less guilty than an agent who consciously twists facts and evidence to land an innocent American and father in prison. In Solzhenitsyn’s time, security agents were often essentially conscripted. Our agents of tyranny are all willing volunteers.

Let this part of it sink in:

We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Do you understand?

We like to quote Solzhenitsyn, but are you willing to accept the ugliness of what he is saying here? Really? He understood that ANY MEANS that could have prevented the horror of the Gulag was acceptable, no matter how ugly. He understood, too late, that it was a cause worth fighting and winning, even if it got ugly. He understood that because he did not fight, it was ultimately his own fault.

I think this applies to struggles and conflict of every type. Personally, politically, in a social violence situation, or in physical warfare. It applies to the smart-alec kid at the store, the guy who cuts you off, the drunk guy provoking you (walk away, if possible), and to the armed guy in your kids’ room at 3 a.m (end the threat any way you can, even if you have to lie, cheat, sneak, or kill).

If it’s worth fighting for, then WIN. The desired end state is end the threat. By any means necessary. Any outcome other than victory in a fight worth fighting is unacceptable. Choosing to lose in such a fight is immoral. Any fight in which you can afford any intentional and unnecessary risk of losing is a fight that perhaps you shouldn’t have fought.

If it’s not worth winning, don’t fight.

If it’s worth fighting, win. By any means necessary.



Bad Time in Baltimore

April 25, 2011

A Time for Attention

by Fred Reed

(Editor’s Note: Fred is spot on in his analysis here, but does not hint at how bad it could get and how quickly. In most of the “graveyard cities” he lists…as well as most cities above 50,000 in population in America…or any city where you find a Martin Luther King Boulevard…the city core population is not middle class black families. When the permanent underclass gets hungry and can’t buy gas for their rides, they will fan out into the neighborhoods closeby and keep fanning out in raiding parties. This can begin within the first couple days after the dollar collapses. Remember the video footage of New Orleans after Katrina. And don’t kid yourself that your non-black neighbors will be more virtuous. You should start now asking yourself whether or not you’ll use deadly force to protect your property and your loved ones. That could mean pulling the trigger on a 14-year-old breaking into your house or car-jacking you. You’re going to have to make some life-changing decisions about who you will help and who you turn away. If you have rations to survive for 6 months and you take in two more, now your rations will only last two months. )

I found on the Drudge Report yesterday a cell-phone video of yet another attack against whites by feral blacks in the cities, in this case Baltimore, where in a McDonald’s two black females kicked a white girl into convulsions, presumably due to brain damage. It seems there was a dispute over precedence for the rest room.

You can see the here, at the site of the American Renaissance. AmRen is regarded as racist, and is, but consists mostly of articles from legitimate newspapers. It doesn’t make up its facts. The comments at the bottom are interesting in that they represent the response to the beating by a large part of the American population. Most don’t post such thoughts where the thought police can find them. They think them, and express them to friends.

Things are bad out in the world, with blacks openly furious at whites and a whole lot of whites quietly so in return. It isn’t a recipe for domestic tranquility. A price will be paid.

Two things stand out about the video. First, cell phones with video cameras built into them are changing the landscape of journalism. All teenagers and most adults now carry video cameras, the difference being that the teenagers know how to use them.

This is not unimportant. Note that such siege howitzers of the media as the BBC frequently run shaky, wobbly, low-res footage of such things as Syrian police beating people, or of citizens dying of bloody head wounds. These can be embarrassing enough to affect policy, and make it harder for repressive governments to control the press. It is now a crime in parts of the US to photograph a policeman; here, as in Syria, governments move to hide the behavior of their “security forces.” This is why China censors the internet, and Washington very much wants to. When the Egyptian public erupted, the government immediately shut down the net. It is interesting that Obama wants an “internet kill switch.”

The other salient point of the beating in Baltimore is that the Drudge Report, a huge, huge, huge site, posted the video under a banner headline almost as huge. I don’t know Matt Drudge, and so can’t speak to his motives, but he had to know that posting video of godawful beating of a white girl by blacks is Something One Doesn’t Do.

Various voices ask, Was it racial? Of course it was. You don’t beat someone into convulsing brain-damaged semi-consciousness over precedence in a line for the bathroom. Ravening homicidal hatred is needed. Welcome to the ghetto.

This sort of thing is not uncommon. In a previous life as a police reporter I encountered or knew of many instances, always of a gang of blacks beating hell out of a white, and in a manner to do serious damage. The maidens in the video wanted to hurt the girl, wanted to hur her badly, and continued kicking her dangerously when they had her helpless. It is one thing to punch someone’s lights out, another to kick him repeatedly in the head.

Always the media respond by describing the attackers as “teenagers” and “youths,” and by burying the story as quickly as possible. When I was writing my Police Beat column for the Washington Times, any mention of racial hatred disappeared during editing.

Ignoring the hatred is not going to serve anyone well, black or white. In the Cook County Jail in Chicago, I once interviewed a Three Star Perfect Elite, if my memory of the title serves, a high-ranking man in the BGD, Black Gangster Disciples. These were and probably are a serious gang. Why, I asked him, do black gang-bangers spend so much time killing other blacks? “we’d rather kill whites, but we know we’d lose,” he said, stone cold. This disappeared in editing.

This is not remotely the sentiment of blacks in general, but of the decaying, jobless, culturally isolated slums. If if it boils over, which is entirely possible, nobody is going to like it. More accurately perhaps, a few blacks and whites would very much like it, but it would be hideous to decent people. You don’t solve a problem by hiding its existence.

Why do the media hide the attacks? I suspect that underlying the circumspection is a half-aware realization that if whites really knew what was happening, some might respond in kind, in which case God help the nation. Having no better idea what to do—I don’t either—journalists figure to keep the lid on and hope the problem goes away, which it won’t. The whole business smells of trouble.

Further, journalism is a rigorously conformist profession. You know what you have to say you believe. You say it. Joe Sobran once defined public opinion as “what everybody thinks everybody else thinks.” Exactly.

And the press corps in Washington lives in a hothouse, insulated from the rest of the country, for most of which they have contempt. They pride themselves on racial correctness yet, in a city the majority of which is black, they have only a few black friends unresembling those of the urban badlands of Northeast, and you never see them in restaurants and clubs where most patrons are black. Many seem to want to protect blacks from criticism. They don’t report reality because they don’t see it. What does this accomplish?

Thus if you point out that black schools in the cities are terrible, an assertion with which every black columnist in the US would agree, many journalists will furiously argue that it isn’t true—not quite calling you a racist, but very nearly. And so nothing changes.

Stray thought: What would you think of an oncologist who insisted that your tumor didn’t exist?

I wonder how wise this wanton inattention probably isn’t. The United States has a grave racial problem that isn’t getting better. The problem is not the black middle class, which is about like any other, but the dangerously angry underclass of the graveyard cities—Newark, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Trenton, Dade, Richmond, Atlanta, on and on. I’ve spent many nights in such places. It’s ugly. And it’s explosive. Depending on your politics, you can blame blacks, whites, God, terrorists, or sunspots, none of which changes anything.

Psychology trumps politics. We can do the liberals-vs-conservatives dance, call each other racists, howl and yowl and pose and prance. What fun. But a spring is being wound. The economy declines, auguring cuts in social subsidies and perilous unrest. Los Angeles burned. It can burn again. The hatred is still there. If there is a solution to the racial disaster, we had better find it.

©Copyright 2011 Fred Reed

Fractional Reserve Banking: The Biggest Bubble Of All Time

April 24, 2011

When this bubble pops, all economies will end

by Russell D.Longcore

Every day we hear talking heads talk about, or we read about, the various “bubbles” occurring in the world.

Here in America, we’ve had the Savings and Loan bubble of the 80s, the Internet “Dot-Com” bubble of the 90s, the real estate/mortgage bubble of the last decade, and now the credit/debt bubble. But there is a worldwide Super Monster Bubble that is the cause of all of the rest of the bubbles that have occurred for the last 100 years.

That bubble is the fiat “money” that is created by Fractional Reserve Banking.

Fractional Reserve Banking (FRB) is the legal system of counterfeiting that all banks worldwide utilize. In a world where 100% reserve banking was practiced, there would be no credit/debt bubble. There would also be no inflation. Here is the definition of FRB from Wikipedia:

Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which only a fraction of a bank’s deposits are kept as reserves (cash and other highly liquid assets) available for withdrawal. The bank lends out some or most of the deposited funds, while still allowing all deposits to be withdrawn upon demand. Fractional reserve banking is practiced by all modern commercial banks.

When cash is deposited with a bank, only a fraction is retained as reserves and the remainder can be loaned out (or spent by the bank to buy securities). The money lent or spent in this way is subsequently deposited with another bank, creating new deposits and enabling new lending. The lending, re-depositing and re-lending of funds expands the money supply (cash and demand deposits) of a country. Due to the prevalence of fractional reserve banking, the broad money supply of most countries is a multiple larger than the amount of base money created by the country’s central bank. This multiple (called the money multiplier) is limited by the reserve requirement or other financial ratio requirements imposed by financial regulators.

Central banks usually require commercial banks to keep a minimum fraction of their customers on demand deposits as reserves. These reserve requirements help limit the amount of money creation that occurs in the commercial banking system, and help to ensure that banks are able to provide enough ready cash to meet normal demand for withdrawals. Problems can arise, however, when depositors seek withdrawal of a large proportion of deposits at the same time; this can cause a bank run or, when problems are extreme and widespread, a systemic crisis. To mitigate these problems, central banks (or other government institutions) generally regulate and oversee commercial banks, act as lender of last resort to commercial banks, and also insure the deposits of the commercial banks’ customers.

Do you see the con job? The central bank, in conjunction with the private banks, conspires to create giant amounts of “fiat money”…currency with no assets that back them. They keep depositing currency in each other’s banks over and over, and each time it creates new money from thin air.

Fiat money completely distorts the economic system, no matter what economic system is in place. Instead of the money supply having a concrete value, its value floats from day to day. That is another way to describe inflation. The value of the money becomes whatever any two entities agree on at any given moment in time.

Inflation is the method that governments and their central banks use to steal property from the populace. And I don’t mean they steal land or assets. They steal the value of our money, which is a component of our property rights as free men.

Here is the way an honest bank is formed, and how an honest bank does business when the money is either precious metals coins, or is an electronic currency backed by coins or another hard asset:

The investors/owners form a legal entity called a bank. The investors/owners put their own money into the new bank as their investment in the enterprise. That provides the new bank with capital. The capital allows the bank to fund operations, and a portion of the capital can be loaned to credit-worthy customers. When the bank loans its own capital to customers, it earns interest, and hopefully makes a profit. Those profits can be accumulated, invested in other non-loan assets (securities, land, etc.) or can be loaned out again.

But the bank can also act as a depository. Customers may place their money on deposit in savings or checking. The bank may charge a fee for this service, which would be customary.

The bank would be required to maintain 100% reserves, meaning that any money under management by the bank (checking or non-interest savings) would have to be kept at the bank and always 100% available for withdrawal. Money borrowed from depositors (interest-bearing savings, Certificates of Deposit, etc.) would not be subject to the reserves requirement, since the bank and depositor have a side contract. Money in safe deposit is not considered under management, since the bank is basically renting storage space in a secure vault for a fee.

A savings account passbook is equal to a receipt for money stored at the bank. Money simply stored would not earn interest, but would be much like money stored in a safe deposit box. But the depositor could enter into contract with the bank to make the deposits into an interest-earning account. In this account, the depositor in essence loans the bank his money for a period of time and earns interest. During that period of time, the bank may use that money to loan to others at a higher interest rate, thereby earning income for the bank. The bank could only loan out the depositor’s money for an amount of time less than the period of deposit. For example, if the depositor made a deposit for 90 days, the bank could only loan out the money for a period of time less than that length of deposit. If the term of the loan went beyond 90 days, the bank would have committed fraud, since they have a legal bailee duty to return the deposit to the depositor at the end of the 90 days.

A checking account allows a depositor to write paper IOUs…checks… against his account for any amount up to and including the account balance. The bearer of the the check may present the check at the bank and receive the amount of the check in hard money or electronic money. Banks customarily charge a fee to the depositor to manage a checking account, which is in essence a bookkeeping fee. If the depositor writes checks in excess of his account balance, he has committed fraud against the bearer.

A bank could issue paper currency of its own, kind of like a checking account IOU note, and based upon the bank’s assets. These are called “bank notes.” But at a 100% reserve requirement, it could only issue bank notes equal to the amount of its own hard assets, not including the deposits of its customers. Issuing bank notes in excess of its assets would constitute fraud and debasement of money.

If you look at the top of a piece of Federal Reserve currency, it will say “Federal Reserve Note.” The earliest Federal Reserve notes, like the Silver Certificate, actually could be redeemed for the underlying silver coins. But a Federal Reserve note is no longer a promissory note, since the only thing you would receive if you presented the note at a Federal Reserve bank would be more Federal Reserve notes. Just because today’s currency is called a note doesn’t make it so.

Banks may perform other services for customers for a fee, or a bank could decide to perform certain services for free. That pretty much sums up what a bank may do without committing fraud.

After reading this article sofar, you may have surmised that if the banking systems of the world operated in a legal manner, worldwide levels of credit would be only a very tiny percentage of how much credit and debt exists in today’s world. And you would be correct. The world banks have been throwing gasoline on the world’s economic fire for a century by creating fiat money. The economic activity worldwide has been wildly distorted by easy credit and massive debt. But easy credit and massive debt is what happens when money created from thin air is infused into the world economic system.

So, the governments of the entire world have conspired to defraud the entire population of the planet, and steal the value of their money by issuing fiat currencies. A state of bankruptcy exists when one’s liabilities exceed one’s assets, and one has no way to pay off the liabilities. The governments and banking systems of the entire planet are fundamentally bankrupt, sustained only by the power to create money out of thin air.

The thin air of worldwide monetary policy, its fractional reserve banking and fiat currencies, is what has inflated the Super Monster Bubble to its bursting point. Soon the bubble will burst, and all of the world’s economic systems will melt down simultaneously.

Around the globe, two groups will emerge. The first group contains the worldwide governments and their central banks who will simply invent another fiat system and fractional banking system, and try to convince the world that this new system will work.

The second group will be those that insist on hard money and honest banking. These people will be found in isolated geographic areas, like small nations…perhaps nations fresh from secession from the United States of America. They will have learned their lessons when the economic meltdown occurs and will return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when hard money meant true prosperity and inflation was what you did to a balloon.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.