follow on to Valerie's O'Reilly letter

Is the US Monetary System on the Verge of Collapse?
http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/galland37.1.html

A Brief Timeline of US Monetary System Failures

Here’s a brief history of past disruptions here in the United States. Importantly, with the US dollar now the de facto reserve currency of the world, this time around it’s global.

1861 – When the Civil War begins, the dollar is convertible into gold and silver.

1862 – Congress passes the Legal Tender Act and authorizes the issuance of non-redeemable "Greenback" currency. Convertibility into gold and silver is suspended for all US currency.

1863 – National Banking Act authorizes the chartering of banks by the federal government.  [And this was the real object for the north going to war and the largely Southern Jeffersonian opposition to federal chartering of banks which became the spur toward Jefferson's expositing his nullification ideas which eventually grew into Southern Secession the fight of the 1860s between the sections was over the banking system not slavery although they are connected and much more was involved]... more inserted below

>> the below inserted comments can be found toward the end of the document linked below

http://www.fireeater.org/Pages/Vol_II_2010/912speechRichmond_09Sep2010_bazz.pdf

So why did the north invade? Why was there a war? There was a war because the north
invaded. Let me say that again. There was a war because the north invaded. Let me say that
yet again. There was a war because the north invaded – not because the South seceded. There
was no war in the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t it have been nice if we’d had the Communist Party
under Gorbachev and shouldn’t they thank God they did not have the Republican Party under
Lincoln. Well let me give you an answer as to why the north invaded. There was a time early
after the war in which the north was very honest about this. In 1877, Charles Bancroft
distinguished northern historian gave the correct explanation in his book, The Footprints of Time:
A Complete Analysis of our American System of Government. It’s what Thomas Dilorenzo has
called mercantilism – that’s our American System of government. He’s telling you what our
American System of government is and why there was a war. “While so gigantic a war was an
immense evil, to allow the right of peaceable secession would have been the ruin of the
enterprise and thrift of the industrious laborer and the keen eyed business man of the north. It
would have been the greatest calamity of the age. War was less to be feared.”
…. But an invasion by the north merely to maintain a territorial monopoly on coercion governed
by northern commercial interests was and is morally reprehensible. Americans should be deeply
ashamed of it. But of course they are not. If that war were fought today with today’s population
that war would have yielded over 5 million battle deaths – not to mention wounded and missing.
But to acknowledge the stark immorality of the north’s invasion would be to throw into question
the legitimacy of the vast centralized regime built upon it. --- {Today’s America in other words).
– Dr. Donald Livingston, excerpt of a speech to the SD Lee Institute, Arlington, Virginia April 2007

1865 – A 10% tax is levied on the issuance of bank notes by state-chartered banks, effectively ending that practice.

1879 – The US Treasury resumes redeeming dollars for gold and silver.

1900 – Passage of the Gold Standard Act, adopting the gold standard by the United States and demonetizing silver.

Specifically, the act provided for "...the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains (1.67 g) of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard..."

But 33 years later, to gain the power to inflate the currency and collect the profit from doing so…

1933 – By executive order, Franklin Roosevelt prohibits the private ownership of gold. Congress passes the Gold Reserve Act, which enacts Roosevelt's executive order, abrogates all gold clauses in all contracts public or private, past or future (which cancels the convertibility of Federal Reserve notes into gold), though it confirms the convertibility of US Treasury notes held by foreigners into gold. Eleven years later, the US government takes its show on the road…

1944 – Bretton Woods system adopted with signature countries agreeing to tie the exchange rates of their currencies to the US dollar, which itself is linked to a fixed price of gold. Foreign trading partners retained the right to swap dollars for gold, imposing a de facto restraint on printing more dollars. For all intents and purposes, the US dollar becomes the world’s reserve currency. But 27 years later…

1971 – Nixon abruptly closes the “gold window,” unilaterally reneging on the Treasury's promise to allow foreign governments to redeem dollars for gold. Bretton Woods collapses. With no remaining tie to a tangible, the dollar is reduced to a paper token. The transition to a global fiat monetary system is complete.

Until 40 years go by and the inevitable consequences of giving politicians free rein over money creation become untenable…

Present day – Sovereign debt crisis. Desperate, debt-laden governments around the globe – the bulk of their reserves composed of fiat US dollars and euros at risk of going up in smoke – turn to the only thing they know, printing more money and issuing yet more debt. The global monetary system cracks and heads toward failure with no workable alternative on the horizon.

An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly by New Yorker Valerie Protopapas

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/09/open-letter-to-bill-oreilly.html

=========

An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly

Dear Sir:

Obviously, you are not a stupid man but sadly, your intellect seems non-existent when it comes to your judgment about American leaders. You have stood foursquare against the current socialist trends in the federal government. You have condemned the excesses of Congress and the Administration and the ever growing centralization of power in Washington as well as the trashing of the Constitution. You have mentioned time and again that such excesses are diametric to the founding principles of the nation, flying in the face of that same document—and I have applauded you for your public defense of those republican (with a lower-case "r") principles and the men (and women) who have championed them.

Yet, the other evening, I heard you—yet again—claim that the "gold standard" of American leadership was none other than President Abraham Lincoln. I actually became so enraged I turned off the TV! I could not bear to listen any longer. All that we currently endure we do so because of Abraham Lincoln! It was Lincoln who embraced the movement of power away from the Sovereign States and the People as envisioned by the Founders. It was Lincoln who adopted the socialist/communist ideologies brought into the United States from Europe with the arrival of the so-called "48ers," the mostly German followers of Marx fleeing their failed revolutions in Europe. However, it is also true that Lincoln had adopted those same policies independently before he was influenced by Europe's socialist upheaval. Did you know that Marx adored Lincoln for the very reason that he worked to centralize power in the federal government? And did you know that Lincoln's government and military was filled with Marxists and socialists? It was Lincoln who abandoned all constitutionally imposed restrictions on the federal government and the presidency when he planned and initiated war against states performing an act guaranteed to them in the Constitution—that of secession from a union that was no longer in the best interest of their people. It was Lincoln who deliberately and with malice brought that war to fruition—a war that cost over a million lives both military and civilian and destroyed an entire section of what had been the united (lower-case "u") States for a century or more. And the list goes on and on. There is no more infamous lie in the annals of American history than Lincoln's analysis of the causes of the so-called "Civil War"—"…and war came." War didn't "come," Lincoln brought it into existence in what proved to be a successful attempt to prevent the loss of eleven Southern states and the 75% of the federal revenues paid by those States. Indeed, the South, by Lincoln's time, had become nothing more than a politically impotent economic colony supplying endless revenues to the rest of the Union while being driven ever deeper into poverty.

It was Lincoln who embraced—and profited from—Hamilton's "American System," which today we call "crony capitalism" and which is really nothing other than the enemy of free enterprise, fascism. Lincoln was supported for the presidency by the economic interests of states such as Pennsylvania to which he promised a high tariff to protect their manufactured goods and a continuation of the flow of capital from the South to the North. Lincoln had been a lawyer with one of the railroads supported by such tax-funded largesse and was so successful that he was allowed to choose the eastern terminus for the contemplated trans-continental railroad. It is interesting—and revealing—to note that the property he chose for that site just happened to be owned by him! Lincoln's sobriquet at that time—Honest Abe—was bestowed by his contemporaries for the same reason that the sobriquet "Little John" was bestowed upon Robin Hood's very large lieutenant. In other words, it was a reference to behavior diametric to the appellation and therefore not a complement.

Finally, if you think that we had election fraud in 2008, Lincoln made use of the military to assure his re-election, something that was by no means guaranteed in November of 1864. General Benjamin (Beast) Butler was sent to New York from which he triumphantly informed Lincoln that no Democrats had been permitted to vote. The same happened in other states such as Ohio where both Lincoln and Lincoln's war were not popular. Soldiers were permitted to vote in areas in which they did not live to assure his re-election. Meanwhile, their presence at the polls was a warning to those who might vote Democrat. In fact, in many instances the ballots were color-coded so that the party chosen by the voter was immediately obvious to those partisan "poll watchers" and many Americas were "discouraged" from voting if a wrong color ballot was observed.

There is so much more on Lincoln's illegal, unconstitutional and immoral actions that is a part of the public record and yet, he continues to be revered, even worshipped, by people who despise and reject the things for which he stood and on which he acted. Even the popular belief that Lincoln "freed the slaves" or, in fact, had any feeling for them individually or as a group is nonsense, proven over and over by his own words and actions. He cared nothing for slavery and even less for "the African" and was willing to put slavery into the Constitution in the original 13th Amendment (Corwin) if it would keep the Southern states compliant.

Even the claim so often made that he fought the war to "preserve the union" is a lie though many Northerners were deceived and indeed fought for that stated purpose. First, a union is by its nature voluntary. Coercion at the point of a bayonet is nothing but conquest and occupation, not "union." Then, Lincoln, his government and all of the states who fought ostensibly to preserve the Union were traitors according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Indeed, the only act defined as treason in that document is the waging of war against any of the signatory states and aiding and abetting in that war. If there was ever an act more worthy of the taint of treason and the openly guilty parties more exposed to public view, it has to be America's "Civil War" in which the federal government—or should I say, the President—declared war on seven (later eleven) signatory states and initiated total war against them. Of course, all of those who supported or permitted this war were themselves traitors to a greater or lesser degree. It is ironic that the taint of treason was spread so liberally—and so successfully—on states that had acted constitutionally in attempting to remove themselves from a hostile and eventually murderous "union" while the actual traitors have been lauded to the skies historically as heroes and "true Americans."

No, Mr. O'Reilly, your "stand" against those attempting to make of what remains of this nation another "Peoples' Republic" cannot be believed so long as you refuse to acknowledge where America started to leave the path of Aristotle, Locke and the Founding Fathers and embrace the governing theories and actions of Hobbes and Marx. Actually, you have only two choices: understand and admit that "the nation's greatest president" was a traitor and a murderer (over a million dead) and repudiate his "vision" for the nation—a federal tyranny—or cling to delusion, deception and myth and, by doing so, render your own message null and void and yourself foolish at best and dishonest at worst. You cannot have Lincoln and liberty.

Valerie Protopapas
New York
========
An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly

the tariff

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/09/tariff-road-to-un-civil-war-questions.html

The Tariff Road to Un-Civil War: Questions and Answers

Brock Townsend's    G, G Grandfather - Tariff Must Be Reduced   see underneath for text from this link

The Tariff must be reduced; it was grinding the South to powder. The northern manufacturers were declaring dividends of 25 and 30 per cent per annum, while the poor farmer at the South could scarcely "make both ends meet." The Tariff must be reduced - it made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

================================

Altering the Constitution - the anti federalists were right

Brutus is my favorite anti federalist ---- and this flag represents them 

http://lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran-j22.1.html

Northern White Supremacist and Disunionists

 

From: bernhard1848@att.net

 

The Republican party platform in 1860 opposed the expansion of African slavery into the territories, keeping those areas open to white settlement only. President James Buchanan of Pennsylvania was by no means a Southern fire-eater – but he clearly saw the movement toward disunion coming once again from the North, and placed the blame for the secession crisis at the feet of the extremist abolitionists who only saw (and demonstrated in Kansas) a future of fire and blood.

 

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 

 

Northern White Supremacists and Disunionists:

 

“[James] Buchanan wished that he could feel…optimistic in regard to the situation in Kansas. The trial of popular sovereignty had brought civil war to that territory. Settlers had gone there to claim land and fight for political control. New Englanders, because of better organization and financing back home, came in greater numbers and with more armament than the Southerners, but the latter had the sympathy of the Missourians who cast ballots for the first Kansas territorial legislature and elected candidates favorable to the South.  The New Englanders called the invaders “border ruffians,” but they do not appear to have been very different from any of the frontier inhabitants of their day.

 

When [President Franklin] Pierce removed Kansas Governor Andrew H. Reeder, for fraudulent dealings in land, the antislavery men charged that he had been fired for denouncing the territorial election. The free State men set up a legislature of their own at Topeka, elected Reeder as Constitutional representative, and drafted [the LeCompton] constitution.   This, incidentally, was an anti-Negro rather than anti-slavery constitution; it established white supremacy by forbidding any Negroes to live in Kansas.

 

About 11 p.m. of May 24 [1854], John Brown, his three sons, and four henchmen headed for Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas and later knocked at the door of James Doyle, a Southerner whom none of the party had ever seen before. Doyle, half-dressed and unarmed, asked them to come in, but Brown’s men drew pistols and invited him to come out. When Doyle’s sons, William, aged 22, Drury, aged 20, and John, 16 stepped to their father’s side, Brown ordered them to come along. A few minutes later Mrs. Doyle and her youngest son, who had remained with her, heard screams and pistol shots outside the cabin, and then there was silence.

 

After midnight Allen Wilkinson, who was up late because his wife Louisa was sick with measles, went to answer a thunderous pounding on the door. “In the name of the Northern Army, open up,” came a deep voice. Brown’s party entered and ordered Wilkinson outside.

 

Not until the next morning did anyone dare go out and investigate. James Doyle and two of his sons lay near the cabin, with bullets through their heads, their skulls split in two with a broadaxe, their sides hacked open, and their fingers cut off. A neighbor found Allen Wilkinson shot in the head, his skull chopped apart and his side pierced. [Antislavery] extremists hailed Brown as a hero. Slavery was a sin, and the wages of sin was death. God had ordained Brown to smite the wicked. 

 

The Republicans named [in 1860] John C. Fremont [for president and the] Republican platform promised to promote the building of a railroad to the Pacific, to make big appropriations for rivers and harbors, and to prohibit in the territories “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”  If they were victorious, the platform pledged to arrest, jail, and possibly execute those who disagreed with them on Kansas.

 

Fremont did not worry [Democrat Buchanan]; the real issue was the Republican threat of disunion and civil war.  Buchanan stated the keynote of his campaign in these words, “The Union is in danger and the people everywhere begin to know it. The Black Republicans must be, as they can be with justice, boldly assailed as disunionists, and this charge must be reiterated again and again.”

 

Ohio’s [Republican] Representative Joshua Giddings had announced “I look forward to the day when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South; when the black man…shall assert his freedom, and wage a war of extermination against his master; when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns of the South…I will hail it as the dawn of the millennium.” New York’s Governor William H. Seward asserted that “there is a higher power than the Constitution.”  A group of Republicans petitioned Congress to take “measures for the speedy, peaceful, and equitable dissolution of the existing union.”  [New York Times founder and publisher Henry] .L. Raymond told an audience at Faneuil Hall, “Remembering that he was a slaveholder, I spit upon George Washington.”

 

(President James Buchanan, A Biography, Philip S. Klein, American Political Biography Press, 1962,  pp. 249-258)

http://dsreif.blogspot.com/2011/02/yankee-twist.html

Jeff Hummel on his book Freeing slaves Enslaving Free men

http://dissentradio.com/radio/09_10_02_hummel.mp3