About Me

Name: Rickey Braddam
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

We're in BIG Trouble!

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Friday, October 10, 2008 2:25:51 PM

Have you seen anything on The Money Masters? I just found their web site, they support a Monetary Reform Act which would eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank and put the Treasury Department back in charge of printing money (United States Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes). Watch The Fed and Tell 300 Million People 

I think you will find this interesting. I did. My imagination can't even stretch around it.

Short version: If you control the money supply, you control the country no matter who is elected to the government. The Federal Reserve Bank (FED - common useage) controls the money supply for the United States. It is an independant bank, not a part of the U.S. government like the Treasury is.

Every Federal Reserve Note (U.S. currency) is a loan certificate for money borrowed from the FED. The FED prints our currency then LENDS it to the Treasury. AND charges interest on it (the prime rate?) until it is returned! Right now we are paying $400BILLION each year in interest charged to use Federal Reserve Notes for our currency.

WHY? It's TOTALLY unnecessary! The U.S. Treasury can print U.S. Treasury Notes and put them in circulation to replace an equal number of Federal Reserve Notes, then return those FED notes. We could replace ALL FED notes with Treasury notes in ONE year! Just think about it: eliminate that part of the National Debt represented by the FED Reserve Notes in circulation (all of it?), eliminate a $400Billion annual expense, and regain control of our economy AT THE SAME TIME!
 
I've heard talk of injecting liquidity into the economy, there's a credit crunch, people and businesses can't get credit, the U.S. has a credit economy... isn't there a little too much credit involved here? I think we need to take away our government's credit card, close our FED account, and revert to a CASH economy.

I SUGGEST that the FED, NAFTA, SPP, North American Community/Union, and Amero are ALL TIED TOGETHER! The links are tenuous right now, but too many things are happening that complement each other for all of them to be purely circumstantial.

More later...
Tags: Fed  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Good Solution for the Economy

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:12:32 AM
This proposal makes more sense to me than anything I've seen so far...
 

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES

By Darrell L. Castle

Constitution Party 2008 Vice-Presidential Candidate

Crystal water turns to dark

Where ere it’s presence leaves it’s mark

And boiling currents pound like drums

When something wicked this way comes.

(Original poem by Ray Bradbury)

Laws, originally evolving out of the New Deal legislation written in response to the great depression, once protected the American financial system. Starting in the 1990’s, in response to intense lobbying efforts by the financial industry, those laws were stripped away. The most important one was Glass Steagall which separated commercial banking from the type of investment work of a stockbroker. Glass Steagall was signed out of existence in 1999 by President Clinton and less than 10 years later the entire financial system is bankrupt. Another law, known as The Uptick rule, prevented companies from crashing due to large scale shorting of company stock. A company’s stock could not be sold short as long as it was in continuous decline. Short sellers had to wait for an uptick in the stock before shorting. The Uptick Rule ended in 2007 just about one year ago.
 
The end of the laws protecting the American public from unscrupulous speculators disguised as bankers caused changes in the way our banks do business. The banks decided that simple banking, that is loaning money at interest, was not profitable enough so they began investing in risk paper. This changed them from banks into something akin to casinos. Now that the gamble has finally failed these new casinos are asking the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for their greed and excess.
 

Now all this risk paper, known in the financial world as “the derivatives market” is collapsing. Derivatives are not stocks or bonds or anything else substantial. They are simply paper derived from other paper such as futures and options. Futures and options are exchange traded derivatives, but the largest group of derivatives is not even traded on the exchanges. These are called “counterparty derivatives” and consist of such things as collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities, and credit default swaps. It is estimated that total derivative exposure of the financial system is between one quadrillion and one and a half quadrillion. A quadrillion is 1000 trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire GDP of all the world’s countries in 2007 was approximately 60 trillion. GDP is basically everything that is produced for sale. The American people are now being asked to shoulder the risk of the entire derivatives market and if they do, 700 billion will prove to be a drop in the bucket.

The rapid increase in the price of fuel during the last year is a good example of the destructive nature of the derivative market. Much of the price increase was due to speculation in futures especially by Goldman Sachs (Henry Paulson’s company) and Morgan Stanley. These companies, it is believed, are responsible for about 50% of the speculative price of oil. What that means is that every time we buy gas we subsidize the parasites who feed off us so they can continue their existence. We are now being asked to accept increased taxes to cover their losses.
 
Now that this mess has been created, what should be done to resolve it with the least amount of pain for the American People?
 
 1. All failed and at risk financial companies, not just those we constantly read about, should be seized by the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and put into involuntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The money people have on deposit would carry the same FDIC guarantee as before so there would be no need for panic. The Chapter 11 trustee would examine the assets of these institutions and all derivative paper should be discharged in bankruptcy. The American people should not accept one penny of risk for derivative paper. The real assets such as mortgages on residential real estate should be separated and foreclosure should be indefinitely frozen. The at risk mortgages, whether subprime or not, could be written down to the current value of the property and re-amortized for a payment the homeowner could afford. The mortgage could then be returned to the bank for service or referred to Fannie and Freddie if the bank did not survive Chapter 11.
 
2. The Federal Reserve Banks should be seized by Congress under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The FED banks could survive as Clearinghouse banks but the Federal Reserve that has robbed the American people for 100 years would cease to exist. The debt owed by the American people to the FED banks would be discharged in bankruptcy. Congress would take monetary policy from the FED and would simply stand in place of the FED through a monetary board. The FED credit computers would be transferred to Congress who would issue new credit (money) because under our present system 97% of all money originates as credit. This new credit would keep the system going and prevent collapse. It could all be done without interest and without debt. The backs of the international banking cartel would be broken forever and the American people through their elected representatives would control monetary policy i.e. money in circulation, interest rates, and credit availability.
 

3. Glass Steagall and the Uptick Rule should be returned. Speculation in the futures markets of essentials such as fuel, food, and medicine should be banned or at least have a punitive tax say 50% attached.

4. The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee would immediately move to seize any assets taken by the CEO’s and Boards of Directors from the bankrupt companies during the prescribed time period. No bankruptcy system would allow the CEO of the bankrupt company to keep hundreds of millions as in some of these cases. At the same time, the U.S. Attorney should be directed to examine the process for criminal sanctions where laws have been violated.
 
In conclusion, this plan would return our monetary system to the American People and ignite a new wave of prosperity and liberty. Every crisis presents opportunities if we only look for them. This is an opportunity for the American people to throw off the yoke of debt bondage that has enslaved them for 100 years and gain direct control of monetary policy through representatives answerable directly to them. No particular philosophy has been respected or spared in this plan. I am more interested in saving the system for the American people than I am in respecting anyone’s philosophy of money or government. This is intended to be a simple, easy to understand, explanation of our banking crisis with a Consitutional solution.
 
Why haven't we heard anything like this from our elected (and candidate) officials? From our "talking heads" in the media or on the radio?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Doctrine

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:14:46 AM
The Bush Doctrine is widely accepted to refer to the National Security Strategy report presented by President Bush in September of 2002. In section III of that paper you will find the following points listed:
  • direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
  • defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
  • denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
  • using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
  • supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
  • diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
  • using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
In the second item of the list you will find the phrase "to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists". Some people will take that one phrase out of the whole document to represent the whole document. If those people were correct I submit that Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran would each have a multitude of places that glow in the dark by now.
 
There's also a National Security Strategy 2006 linked from the White House website. Do (some) people call it the "New Bush Doctrine"? If not, why not? Surely there is at least one phrase in it they can pull out and rant about.
 
Speaking of ranting, I'm sure there are some who, if they read this, would rant about what I've written here and call me a "Bush Apologist" if not something much worse. Nothing could be farther from the truth. IMNSHO (in my not-so-humble opinion) George Bush is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States and to his oath of office. He failed - no, refused! - to perform the duties of his office which are mandated by the Constitution and he violated his oath of office. That's another rant and it's late soooo, wait for it.
/R
 
Tags: president  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP Platform re: Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Monday, September 15, 2008 4:34:05 PM

We may have to hold their feet to the fire, but here's what the GOP Platform says is the Republican position is. From the GOP platform:

http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people's rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government's past failures to enforce the law.

If they fail to keep this promise I expect the Republican party to shed registrations like a snake shedding its skin. That would be detrimental since only registered Republicans can get SaraCuda chosen for the Republican candidate in 2012 if McCain decided to break another promise and run for a second term.

I won't vote for McCain, but I will vote for Palin. If he rides her apron strings into the White House, so be it. I want the opportunity to dump him in four years and put Palin/Jindal in the White House.

What do you get when you cross a Pit Bull with a Barracuda? A Marxist's worst nightmare!
Tags: Palin   mccain  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Identify The Source

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:58:08 AM
Can you identify the source of the following?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

It comes from:
  1. The platform of the Democratic Party
  2. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The correct answer is number 2. I hope the fact that a couple of the things listed have already been accomplished (achieved) and others are in progress didn't cause you to pick the wrong answer.
 
1.   Partially completed (National Forests, Parks, etc, Kelo decision)
2.   Completed.
3.   Partially completed ("Death Tax").
5.   Partially completed (Federal Reserve system, collapse of banking and loan system).
9.   Partially completed (agribusiness).
10. Partially completed (Department of Education).
 
They're almost half way there!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Duties of the Vice President

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:39:20 AM

From the Constitution:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

From the 25th Amendment:

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Go ahead, look it up for yourself. You won't find anything anywhere else in the Constitution or any of the amendments that assigns other duties or responsibilities to the VP! That brings up some interesting questions.
 
Why did the framers of the Constitution assign only two specific duties to the Vice President? The first one, to become the President or Acting President under specific circumstances is obvious, but why President of the Senate, and why not more additional duties?
  1. Did the framers just assign a job to the VP to justify his position until such time as he/she had to assume the Presidency?
  2. Did they think that President of the Senate was an important job requiring someone's full attention and the VP just happened to be idle? After all, the VP has nothing else to do unless he/she's being the President.
  3. Did they just want someone from the Executive Office there to keep tabs on what the Senate was doing (and perhaps provide input as requested from the President's office)?

Or maybe it was for some other reason. Regardless of their reason, perhaps there could be some advantage to us, the citizens of the United States, if the VP was to actually preside as President of the Senate. I'll have to spend more time watching CSPAN2 to see what the President actually does. But could the President of the Senate...

  1. ensure that all the Senators were present in the Senate chambers when a bill was being debated.
  2. arrange for the clerk to post the proceedings of the Senate directly to the Senate web site for access by the public. It would be easier than it is for me to write this essay.
  3. if all the Senators were in the chambers when a vote was called, with electronic voting the vote could be completed in less than one minute. Guess how much that would expedite the proceedings in the Senate.
  4. Initiate investigations into corruption (or the appearance of corruption).
  5. Publicise the actions of lobbiests on the Senate web site.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain's reprieve

Posted by Rickey Braddam on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:37:29 PM
Recent events have caused me to re-evaluate my position. I had decided to vote for Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party, not as a protest vote against the Republican Party but because the CP subscribes to the principles I believe in and the Republican Party had clearly abandoned those principles.
 
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for his Vice-President changed my mind. It doesn't make up for his getting even with the Republican Party (for eight years) for not selecting him to be the Presidential candidate in 2000. It doesn't make up for his ignoring established law and sponsoring legislation to amnesty millions who are in violation of the law. It doesn't make up for his sponsoring legislation which infringes on free speech. It doesn't make up for... well, you get the idea.
 
All it does is give us the opportunity to steer the Republican Party toward Constitutional principles in the future. Sara Palin will not be the savior of the country by her own actions, but the attention she draws to the political parties and processes can be. Sara may be able to awaken the "sleeping giant" of the "silent majority" and motivate them to become active in the political process. If they are motivated we can educate them about the "directions" each party wants the country to take and the possible consequences of going in those directions.
 
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. McCain got lucky, not by choosing Sarah, but by the fact that she was there to choose. I'm sure he considered his choices long and hard and made the choice he thought would be most effective at getting him elected. I doubt he had any idea of how enthusiasticly the citizens of the United States would respond to his choice.
 
As you may have guessed, I'm going to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. Not for McCain, I still consider him a traitor to the Constitution, but for Palin. You may think I believe she can go to DC and clean out the corruption there. There's practically zero chance of that, she doesn't have the authority or power to do it as VP. She may be able to influence him to omit the amnesty paragraph in his next attempt to get a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (Comprehensive Illegal Alien Amnesty Act) passed, but the chance of that is slim.
 
The VP has only two responsibilities assigned by the Constitution: act as or replace the President when necessary and serve as the President of the Senate.
 
Go ahead, look it up for yourself. You won't find anything in the Constitution or any of the amendments that assigns other duties or responsibilities to the VP! I find that very interesting, I think I'll write another essay to discuss it.
 
I haven't forgotten that the President can delegate any authority to the VP he wishes but the responsibility for the VPs actions in that case remains with the President. All it takes to delegate authority is (I believe until corrected) an Executive Order. You can't delegate responsibility.
 
Tags: Palin  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »