@DBM - You sound exactly like me before I did some in depth research. First some definitions… Inflation is expansion of the monetary base, or more simply an increase in the number of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Deflation is contraction of the monetary base.

This is the Austrian view and my view as well. The Keynesian view is quite different and I disagree with the bases of Keynesian economics. 99% of the universities in America and Europe teach solely Keynesian economics. For most in this country Keynesian economics = Economics. This is why it is so difficult to speak with those that grew up studying Keynesianism.

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are not US Dollars by definition. The US Dollar is defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 and is between 371 and 416 grains (27.0 g) of silver and an ‘eagle” to be between 247 and 270 grains (17 g) of gold (depending on purity). Everything else that claims to be a dollar is counterfeit.

Inflation, or the creation of more FRNs, makes each of the other FRNs worth less. By definition this is theft. Each created FRN takes value away from the others. So a little inflation is like a little bit of theft. I do not condone theft, so I do not think a little inflation is a good thing.

In the US Constitution it states that only gold and silver are to be legal tender. Not pieces of paper representing gold and silver, but actual physical gold and silver. Anything to the contrary is unconstitutional.

Lastly, the Federal Reserve is our third attempt at a central bank and is in complete control of the FRN. I do not believe in monopolies, and I especially do not believe in anyone or thing having a monopoly on money. Therefore, I advocate abolishing the legal tender laws first and the Fed would then vanish. If I want to used constitutional money (gold and silver) to trade for goods and services, I should be able to. It’s about freedom and liberty. The Federal Reserve system is about monopolistic control.

P.S. The Federal Reserve is not a pyramid scheme, but Social Security is.

Managing the money supply (yes, including creating money out of thin air) is the job of the Federal Reserve.  They do this through the banks.  As the economy grows, the money supply needs to grow.  If it grows too much it is called inflation, too little is deflation (which rarely happens).  Nonetheless this is a necessary and natural function.

My understanding of the source of many of the current issues is the portion of the economy that is tied up in financial instruments which increase in monetary value without any commensurate increase in goods, services or company values (the potential to create goods & services).  This increase in money which represents nothing of real value is a “bubble”.  Equity bubbles are when the value of companies (their capacity to create goods & services) are overestimated.  In this case, it is the value of companies which create financial instruments which have nothing to do with goods & services which have been overvalued.

The Fed, no doubt, could have been a brake on this by restricting money supply.  However, since the banks are involved they would starve the rest of the economy first.  There are definitely people who know what they’re talking about blaming this whole thing on Alan Greenspan and the Fed’s policies.  I think the bankers should bear much of the blame.  I would be interested what laws have been broken (as the regulations have been removed much of this was made legal).

Nonetheless, it seems evident that a massive industry based on increasing values of things that have no basis in real economic activity is a pyramid scheme.  This one is the biggest ever…

@DBM - I don’t know why you think I’m against regulation. While I see it as a waste of tax payers money, I’m not against it as much as I am the Fed, which can create money out of thin air.

The banksters are criminals you don’t regulate criminals you put them in jail. As you can see all the regulations that are already in place would have averted this financial crisis, but it’s not regulations or more regulation that we need. I would be the enforcement of those regulation, which does not happen.

The Federal Reserve System is the culprit when it come to the booms and bust that we’ve been experiencing since 1913. The Federal Reserve Note today, which is incorrectly refereed to as the US Dollar, is worth only 4 cents what the USD was worth in 1913.

hello. as it appears you are trying to determine whom is a natural born citizen, it is my interpretation that: any child born to parents whom are already citizens of the USofA, whom are still citizens of the USofA at the time of the birth: give birth to a child, whom becomes naturally a citizen of the USofA, after doing his/her thirteen years of probation. born in this country of parents of this country and living in this country naturally as a born citizen; a natural born citizen. freaks accepted. citizenship of both parents determines the citizenry of the child. if one parent is not a citizen of the USofA, it is not a natural born citizen. if daddy is citizen of another country, or mommy; it is not a natural born citizen. can become a citizen, but will never be a natural born citizen.

This issue has legs for the same reason the pregnancies of Sarah Palin and her kids had legs. It’s dumbed-down, non-news that pushes emotional buttons but doesn’t mean squat.

That the majority of Americans believe Canadians cannot choose their doctor, that the majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11, that the majority of Americans believe Single Payer will cost more than our current non-system - this all speaks to an absolute and total failure on the part of our Corporate News Media. In a race for ratings, what we get are shallow, irrelevant, emotion-fired stories which trump meaningful, substantive news every time.

So to all those fringies out there. Since John McCain was not born in America and actually was born on an military base in the Panama Canal Zone and if he had won the election, would there be all this B.S. about him not being a citizen of the United States? Didn’t think so.

I do not consider the fact that America may have “military bases” in over 150 other foreign countries, that are clearly not in the actual country of America, nor actually belonging to America to be considered as a part of America. We are invaders/squatters in those countries and any persons born in those countries are actually a Native of that country regardless of the parents origin or citizenship.

I’m genuinely interested, BlueEagle, why you would be more interested in transparency of the Federal Reserve rather than regulation of the “banking” sector which has redirected capital which could be used by the “real” economy into financial instruments which are nothing more than an elaborate pyramid scheme creating value out of nothing.

@Flawed Human - I agree with you. Let’s say Obama was born in Kenya. His father was never a citizen, but his mother always was. Just like he’s half white; he half a citizen. He’s just a puppet anyway, so let’s move on to more important issues like…

Auditing the Federal Reserve and getting HR1207 (281 co-sponsors) and S604 (20 co-sponsors) passed.

I usually appreciate Bill Mayer and this was no exception; brilliant analysis of pandering by the media all in the campaign to dumb-down the population. The people who get upset by Bill are generally missing the point.

This is a great idea!

A discussion thread for wing-nuts that keeps them busy so issues that matter can be discussed in other places on this site without this stuff getting in the way.

It is interesting that the spelling and grammar here is way worse than usual.  Methinks there are people who search for this crap and put their two cents in.

Read a few articles while you’re here people ... it couldn’t hurt.

I just learned something new. “Natural born” was defined by an act of the First Congress on March 26, 1790 as follows:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

“shall be considered”! If you were born “beyond the sea (what sea?), or out of the limits of the United States but your parents must have been US citizens at the time of birth.

That still makes the following the only constitutionally legal Presidents:George Washington; John Adams; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; John Monroe; John Quincy Adams; Andrew Jackson; Martin van Buren; William Harrison.

All other presidents were born either too late or were not “natural born”. Tough luck!

Obama fails because his father, I believe, was not a Citizen of the United States at the time of Obama’s birth.

Boy, does Article 2 need some scrubbing! It is close to ridiculously byzantine.

Article 2 of our Constitution states that you must be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to become our President. It is obvious that such nonsense would never have been written if women had framed the constitution because women would have written “born citizen of the United States”. If there is such a thing as “natural born” then there has to be “unnatural born” and what is that? Does “natural born” rule out people conceived by artificial insemination?
Not a single one of our Presidents was “natural born”.
The constitution was adopted as “active” by the Congress on September 13, 1788. Hence only the following were ever constitutionally legal Presidents: George Washington; John Adams; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; John Monroe; John Quincy Adams; Andrew Jackson; Martin van Buren; William Harrison because they were Citizens on that date.
All other Presidents were not constitutionally eligible.
One interesting side-comment. Alexander Hamilton would have been eligible to become President even though he was born on a Caribbean Island that was not in the USA at the time.
Article 2 must be replaced by one in modern, universally understandable language, preferably written by women because we men will undoubtedly foul it up again.

Posted on Aug 2, 2009

“The “Real Time” host battles the birthers, “the far-right goofballs who claim Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii…”

The best coverage of this red herring issue was the

Lou Dobbs moment when he ranted after the hoax was

completely laid to rest by his replacement the

previous day.

hello. i did not see the bit, as my driver is down. or was the video removed? c’mon, Mr. Maher… are you really scraping the bottom for topics? if the certificate is illigit, you must convict. if the glove doesn’t fit, why are you stupidly forcing it on? no judge is going to oppose an ‘elected’ leader of the free world while he is in office. if the billboards spill your bong water- then don’t look. now, that swimmer that recovered from a bong hit to set a new world record- that’s something to light up to.