Financial Reform? Definitely Not.
This week the U.S. House passed a financial “reform” bill. This bill will do little more than further empower the largest of banks as well as the Federal Reserve, and nothing to avoid future collapses. The fundamental reason for this is because the bill does nothing to address the core problems of our economic system.
The legislation that has passed the house this week is only distracting and, ultimately, further destructive to our already fragile economy. If we want to be serious about financial reform in this country, we need to concern ourselves with the Federal Reserve. As long as we have a secretive bank that operates outside the oversight of the people’s representatives in Congress, and which acts as a lender of last resort for big banks and politicians, we can expect more of the same.
The Federal Reserve Bank acting as a lender of last resort is what creates the moral hazard that makes excessive risk seem so appealing. When there is a Federal Reserve that will create credit out of thin air for a “too big to fail” bank, there is no actual risk of failure at all - the Federal Reserve simply moves a few zeroes around. The only real risk is the public anger that arises when average Americans realize they have been swindled by huge banks, in collusion with the very people they have elected to represent them in Congress.
Artificially low interest rates set by the Fed under Greenspan caused massive over-investment in housing and other sectors of our economy, which resulted in a bust that really signaled the end of an economic era. Under the new financial reform bill, the Fed will be further empowered, with even greater oversight and influence over the economy than they already possessed.
Considering the Fed was in no small part responsible for the bad investment and excessive risk that led to the collapse of our economy in 2008, why are they now being given even greater powers? This is akin to having the fox guard the hen house. To make matters worse, in an act of brazen mass hypocrisy, 114 Congressmen who had previously cosponsored legislation to audit the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207), voted to strip the audit out of the financial reform package at the last minute. There goes the people’s oversight.
If we want true financial reform, for the sake of our freedom and liberty, we need to examine the Federal Reserve in depth and find out what they are doing behind closed doors. This week the UN announced that they should dump the dollar as a world reserve currency because it has been “unable to safeguard value.” A move like this would have direct negative consequences on the value of our currency. This is yet another signal that the Fed has failed, with disastrous results not only to the economy at large, but to our personal finances as well.
The Federal Reserve, at best, didn’t see the collapse coming; at worst, they are in collusion with some of the most powerful money interests in the world, and they no longer work for us. Neither is a situation that would warrant them even greater influence over the economy. This huge mistake of a bill is now moving onto the Senate. If anything, this has been instructive, as it shows us exactly for whom the politicians in Washington work. Rather than grant greater powers to the Federal Reserve, it is time to declare the 100-year experiment in American central banking to be a dismal failure, and return to the sound money of our Constitution. The future of freedom and prosperity demands it.
[The author, Tom Vendittelli, is a candidate for Congress in New York’s 13th district. This is the first of a three part series on financial reform.]
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A friend of mine in the LP asked some questions on the board regarding gold and how using gold for money once again would work. I thought he had some really good questions that a lot of people might have, so I will post it all here. Hope it clears something up for somebody out there.
1) If you had $10K in gold, which is money, the answer is yes you could issue paper, a money substitute, in exchange for the paper. The agreement would probably be that your paper could be exchanged for gold on demand. Dave may take this paper currency, but this is only if he knew of your reputation for redeeming the paper in gold - the money substitute (paper) for actual money (gold/silver/whatever).
2) Your exchange would be of a paper certificate to a specific quantity of commodity. Today we think of money in numeric terms, one penny is 1c, a nickle is 5c, a $5 bill, etc. Everyone understands that. But historically, money was though of in terms of weight. The coinage act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792) defined a dollar as 21.4g of pure silver. A dollar was a dollar if it had a certain weight of silver within it. For example a one dollar coin did not equal a dollar just because they printed a one on it. It had to contain 24.1g of pure silver.
So, your exchange would be for a certain weight of gold. The value in terms of good and services is irrelevant for the purposes of your contract. In this case (which is confusing because the banking system we have now is so ass-backwards), you would be acting more as a warehouse for gold and silver. Instead of lugging around bags of gold like a bunch of leprechauns, people would go to you (and pay for your services), to store their gold. If you build up a reputation, people might take your paper tickets for payment instead of gold. If they don't know your business, they would probably have to follow the paper holder to your warehouse and have the gold taken out and transferred that way.
3) I'll try to assume what you mean. If gold drops or rises in price in terms of what? Goods and services? I think you can answer your own question. Think of it this way - if people thought you were going to play all kinds of funky tricks with the rates of gold, etc - then they would keep it under their beds or offer it to another competitor that offers a better deal and more security for their property.
If you mean can you print more paper tickets than you have gold in reserve - then you have just found the root of economic boom-bust cycles.
4) Your last question is about fractional-reserve banking. When you print more gold tickets by 50%, you are creating 50% more money substitutes for which there is no backing of actual money. This does not solve price fluctuation but rather causes it. When I want to understand something, I take it to a ridiculous extreme. Let's try that.
Let's say we have an island of 10 people, you are the one gold safe deposit bank. Everyone has an account at the Bank of Brian and everyone on the island trusts you and knows you always pay in full upon demand, so they all use your paper for transactions. Everything is going along wonderfully in the community of gold town. Now one day you decide, "hey I think I should issue more paper because that is what everyone uses for money and that will make everyone happier and better off". Maybe your motives are more greed driven, but we'll assume the best intentions.
Now you issue lets say double the amount of paper in new loans. Now back to extremes - You issue all of the new paper to one person, they spend it around town like crazy. It seems everything is fine, except that stuff is getting consumed much faster all of a sudden. People are eating more pineapples, eating more fish at the restaurant, drinking more rum. The problem is there hasn't been an increase in the quantity of rum. Now the price goes up, which is supply and demand.
More so, you are only fine until someone thinks you might not have all the gold on hand anymore to pay back those paper receipts. Although you never let anyone down before, you might have done it now, so someone cashes out. Someone sees him and he has gold, he tells them yeah I cashed out. Wow maybe I should - he cashes out. The problem is you can't cash out everybody now, because you have printed twice the amount of money substitute (paper) for the amount of money (gold) you actually had. This is a bank run. You go out of business, you probably get excommunicated from the island because you just threw everything out of whack. Everyone ate all the pineapples and fish because they thought they were rich, and now they must go starving until they get back on their feet. A boom and a bust.
Our current banking system does what the Bank of Brian does in this example - except the reserve requirement is under 10%. And it is protected by law that the banks are too big to fail, don't have to pay, and will be bailed out by a "lender of last resort" - the Federal Reserve, who will just simply print more paper tickets to cover the debt that can't be repaid. Causing another cycle of eat the pineapples, eat the fish, then starve. Moral hazard my friends.. Moral hazard.
I hope that helped in some way.
Maybe you money theorists can help me wrap my head around the
concept... I have holes in my knowledge and understanding of the
practical implications of a gold system. I direcr the following
questions to our resident monetary theorists. :)
1) If I had $10k in gold, could I float $10k in paper currency,
assuming it was legal, and lend this currency to Tom, who could use it
to pay Dave?
2) If someone wants to cash in their paper for gold, am I obliged to give
gold in return based on market rates or fixed rates defined by my
currency?
3) if gold drops or rises in price, do I have an obligation to constrict
my money supply or can I expand it?
4) Can a gold system have a reserve rate -- say 50%, so I can float $20k
on a $10k gold reserve? Does that solve price fluctuation issues (but
not protect me from a gold crash)?
1) If you had $10K in gold, which is money, the answer is yes you could issue paper, a money substitute, in exchange for the paper. The agreement would probably be that your paper could be exchanged for gold on demand. Dave may take this paper currency, but this is only if he knew of your reputation for redeeming the paper in gold - the money substitute (paper) for actual money (gold/silver/whatever).
2) Your exchange would be of a paper certificate to a specific quantity of commodity. Today we think of money in numeric terms, one penny is 1c, a nickle is 5c, a $5 bill, etc. Everyone understands that. But historically, money was though of in terms of weight. The coinage act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792) defined a dollar as 21.4g of pure silver. A dollar was a dollar if it had a certain weight of silver within it. For example a one dollar coin did not equal a dollar just because they printed a one on it. It had to contain 24.1g of pure silver.
So, your exchange would be for a certain weight of gold. The value in terms of good and services is irrelevant for the purposes of your contract. In this case (which is confusing because the banking system we have now is so ass-backwards), you would be acting more as a warehouse for gold and silver. Instead of lugging around bags of gold like a bunch of leprechauns, people would go to you (and pay for your services), to store their gold. If you build up a reputation, people might take your paper tickets for payment instead of gold. If they don't know your business, they would probably have to follow the paper holder to your warehouse and have the gold taken out and transferred that way.
3) I'll try to assume what you mean. If gold drops or rises in price in terms of what? Goods and services? I think you can answer your own question. Think of it this way - if people thought you were going to play all kinds of funky tricks with the rates of gold, etc - then they would keep it under their beds or offer it to another competitor that offers a better deal and more security for their property.
If you mean can you print more paper tickets than you have gold in reserve - then you have just found the root of economic boom-bust cycles.
4) Your last question is about fractional-reserve banking. When you print more gold tickets by 50%, you are creating 50% more money substitutes for which there is no backing of actual money. This does not solve price fluctuation but rather causes it. When I want to understand something, I take it to a ridiculous extreme. Let's try that.
Let's say we have an island of 10 people, you are the one gold safe deposit bank. Everyone has an account at the Bank of Brian and everyone on the island trusts you and knows you always pay in full upon demand, so they all use your paper for transactions. Everything is going along wonderfully in the community of gold town. Now one day you decide, "hey I think I should issue more paper because that is what everyone uses for money and that will make everyone happier and better off". Maybe your motives are more greed driven, but we'll assume the best intentions.
Now you issue lets say double the amount of paper in new loans. Now back to extremes - You issue all of the new paper to one person, they spend it around town like crazy. It seems everything is fine, except that stuff is getting consumed much faster all of a sudden. People are eating more pineapples, eating more fish at the restaurant, drinking more rum. The problem is there hasn't been an increase in the quantity of rum. Now the price goes up, which is supply and demand.
More so, you are only fine until someone thinks you might not have all the gold on hand anymore to pay back those paper receipts. Although you never let anyone down before, you might have done it now, so someone cashes out. Someone sees him and he has gold, he tells them yeah I cashed out. Wow maybe I should - he cashes out. The problem is you can't cash out everybody now, because you have printed twice the amount of money substitute (paper) for the amount of money (gold) you actually had. This is a bank run. You go out of business, you probably get excommunicated from the island because you just threw everything out of whack. Everyone ate all the pineapples and fish because they thought they were rich, and now they must go starving until they get back on their feet. A boom and a bust.
Our current banking system does what the Bank of Brian does in this example - except the reserve requirement is under 10%. And it is protected by law that the banks are too big to fail, don't have to pay, and will be bailed out by a "lender of last resort" - the Federal Reserve, who will just simply print more paper tickets to cover the debt that can't be repaid. Causing another cycle of eat the pineapples, eat the fish, then starve. Moral hazard my friends.. Moral hazard.
I hope that helped in some way.
Monday, May 3, 2010
U.S. Inflation Statistics and You
According to figures released today by the Commerce Department, Americans have experienced a 2% price increase in the last three months. Without accounting for food and energy prices, inflation is at an overall 1.3 % in the last three months. Interestingly, when looking at food and energy prices, we see there has been a price increase of 18.7 % when viewed against March of 2009. This means you are paying almost a fifth more for food and energy from last year.
What does all of this mean? For one, it means the cost of living is on a sharp rise. It would be hard to explain in a weakened economy how we are seeing such a sharp rise in prices. People are spending less overall than they were in previous years, as many struggle with the effects of a down economy. This should have the effect of lowering prices and the cost of living, and it would, if not for the inflation factor.
Many in the mainstream like to define inflation as a rise in prices. This assessment ignores the cause and identifies the symptom. Inflation is more accurately defined as an increase in the supply of money. As laws of supply and demand dictate, when there is more money competing for the same level of goods, prices rise. So we actually see rising prices as a result of inflation. Simply put, the Federal Reserve, our nation’s central bank, prints more money, and we in turn have to pay more to feed our families, heat our homes, and fuel our vehicles.
This is by no means a new phenomenon in American history. Since the Federal Reserve bank opened for business in 1914, the dollar has lost 95% of its value. This is a confusing track record for an entity who is mandated to “maintain low inflation and stable prices”. All Americans can likely attest to the fact that cost of living is on the rise, while wages struggle to keep up, if they keep up at all. For many Americans, jobs have been lost and wages have actually decreased as part of employer austerity measures. How are these citizens supposed to keep up with the harmful effects of inflation, such as a 18.7% price increase in food?
The truth is, though the Federal Reserve might be inflating the currency, (printing more money), so they can bail out Wall St. and help our government fund trillion dollar wars and entitlement programs without raising taxes, the people who are harmed most by inflation are the poor and middle class. Whereas a wealthier family might not have a great deal of trouble adjusting spending habits to accommodate a 1/5 price rise in food, a family living on a strict budget or fixed income might now find themselves unable to meet their other monthly obligations. A family in the lowest income brackets might find themselves suddenly unable to make ends meet. This family may be confused, and rightly so, as they haven’t lived more extravagantly - they simply find the prices to provide for daily needs have skyrocketed. Such are the hidden and insidious effects of inflation. Inflation is nothing less than a hidden tax on the people, harming those most vulnerable in our society.
Even more startling than the 18.7% price increase reported by the Commerce Department today are the numbers that show the United States money supply, M3. These figures are no longer published by the Federal Reserve on their website, perhaps because they are “the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit”, according to Congressman Ron Paul. If we go to Shadowstats.com, a private website which still estimates M3, we will see some sobering numbers. If you refer to the below chart, you will see M3 hit 18% between 2009 and 2010. Although inflation can be unpredictable in proportion to the money supply, it can come as little surprise that we have experienced an almost 19% price increase between this year and last year.
Sadly, with the way the Federal Reserve has irresponsibly increased the supply of money and credit, we can only expect more inflation in the near future. With these numbers in front of us, and as evidenced by the ongoing collapse in Greece and the EU, we can expect 1970’s-like inflation at best and destruction of the dollar at worst. This signifies the potent danger a secretive quasi-private bank, the Federal Reserve, can wreak on our economy, and indeed in our very lives.
What does all of this mean? For one, it means the cost of living is on a sharp rise. It would be hard to explain in a weakened economy how we are seeing such a sharp rise in prices. People are spending less overall than they were in previous years, as many struggle with the effects of a down economy. This should have the effect of lowering prices and the cost of living, and it would, if not for the inflation factor.
Many in the mainstream like to define inflation as a rise in prices. This assessment ignores the cause and identifies the symptom. Inflation is more accurately defined as an increase in the supply of money. As laws of supply and demand dictate, when there is more money competing for the same level of goods, prices rise. So we actually see rising prices as a result of inflation. Simply put, the Federal Reserve, our nation’s central bank, prints more money, and we in turn have to pay more to feed our families, heat our homes, and fuel our vehicles.
This is by no means a new phenomenon in American history. Since the Federal Reserve bank opened for business in 1914, the dollar has lost 95% of its value. This is a confusing track record for an entity who is mandated to “maintain low inflation and stable prices”. All Americans can likely attest to the fact that cost of living is on the rise, while wages struggle to keep up, if they keep up at all. For many Americans, jobs have been lost and wages have actually decreased as part of employer austerity measures. How are these citizens supposed to keep up with the harmful effects of inflation, such as a 18.7% price increase in food?
The truth is, though the Federal Reserve might be inflating the currency, (printing more money), so they can bail out Wall St. and help our government fund trillion dollar wars and entitlement programs without raising taxes, the people who are harmed most by inflation are the poor and middle class. Whereas a wealthier family might not have a great deal of trouble adjusting spending habits to accommodate a 1/5 price rise in food, a family living on a strict budget or fixed income might now find themselves unable to meet their other monthly obligations. A family in the lowest income brackets might find themselves suddenly unable to make ends meet. This family may be confused, and rightly so, as they haven’t lived more extravagantly - they simply find the prices to provide for daily needs have skyrocketed. Such are the hidden and insidious effects of inflation. Inflation is nothing less than a hidden tax on the people, harming those most vulnerable in our society.
Even more startling than the 18.7% price increase reported by the Commerce Department today are the numbers that show the United States money supply, M3. These figures are no longer published by the Federal Reserve on their website, perhaps because they are “the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit”, according to Congressman Ron Paul. If we go to Shadowstats.com, a private website which still estimates M3, we will see some sobering numbers. If you refer to the below chart, you will see M3 hit 18% between 2009 and 2010. Although inflation can be unpredictable in proportion to the money supply, it can come as little surprise that we have experienced an almost 19% price increase between this year and last year.
Sadly, with the way the Federal Reserve has irresponsibly increased the supply of money and credit, we can only expect more inflation in the near future. With these numbers in front of us, and as evidenced by the ongoing collapse in Greece and the EU, we can expect 1970’s-like inflation at best and destruction of the dollar at worst. This signifies the potent danger a secretive quasi-private bank, the Federal Reserve, can wreak on our economy, and indeed in our very lives.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Censorship and the Role of Government
Something that troubles me deeply is the level of official censorship we currently experience in America. Right now the United States is involved in two major foreign conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among several other operations being carried out against other countries. For all of this war going on, we see very little of it in the media – either on television or in the papers. Everyone knows we have large media corporations with intense ability to cover and transmit in depth reporting and accurate news. Why then do we usually see the trivial and entertaining emphasized on the news, instead of in depth reporting of what is really happening with our country?
The UK Times Online reported on Sunday that WikiLeaks, an organization that publishes sensitive government documents leaked by whistle-blowers, while keeping their sources anonymous, was raided by government agents prior to the release of a video of a mission in Afghanistan in which 97 civilians were killed. WikiLeaks reported they came under surveillance in March, prior to releasing a video of an Apache helicopter killing several civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and seriously injuring two children.
According to the UK Times, their headquarters was seized, computers were taken, and Twitter posts from WikiLeaks director and journalist, Julian Assange, suggest they may fear for their lives. This comes after WikiLeaks published a document leaked from the Pentagon suggesting ways to discredit and eliminate the website in March of 2008. This all confirms a long held suspicion that the government of the United States is very much involved in official censorship, not unlike the government of China. This can be considered even more significant than China’s censorship, when factoring in the wars the United States is involved in.
President John F. Kennedy once said,
"The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."
These words ring truer today than they did when they were spoken almost half a century ago. Why do we condemn China for their policies of censorship when we have a problem right here in our own country? If the government is actively engaged in intimidating media and whistle-blowers, we can only infer they are doing things they don’t want us to know about.
Of course there will always be a need for security in protecting American lives that may be endangered, but what we are seeing here goes beyond that purpose. It shows that there are people on the government payroll whose job it is to figure out how to discredit and stifle the truth.
This has implications for many things, not least of which is your desire to choose the type of society you want to live in. If the government is so secretive that it is stifling information, which is being delivered by patriotic Americans who are putting themselves at great risk, how will we ever attain a full picture and decide for ourselves what direction the country should go in? How will we be able to decide when the government goes too far? We as a free people in an open society, should be afforded every ability to access and digest information that can help inform our decisions. It is the job of no man to tell another what he should think.
Another implication is in the role of government. In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment recognizes full and unabridged freedom of the press. The actions taken against WikiLeaks seem a clear infraction of First Amendment freedoms. We can also infer from this that the government is involved in deciding what is good to release to the public and what is not. Someone, being paid by your tax dollars, is deciding just how much you are going to be allowed to know, if anything at all.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide the government with powers over the minds of man. The Federal government and all agencies involved should not be permitted to exercise these assumed powers. It is the duty of the American people to inform themselves and make their own decisions. It is not the duty of the military, government, or intelligence agencies to mold public opinion or prevent the truths of war from becoming known to the people.
The UK Times Online reported on Sunday that WikiLeaks, an organization that publishes sensitive government documents leaked by whistle-blowers, while keeping their sources anonymous, was raided by government agents prior to the release of a video of a mission in Afghanistan in which 97 civilians were killed. WikiLeaks reported they came under surveillance in March, prior to releasing a video of an Apache helicopter killing several civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and seriously injuring two children.
According to the UK Times, their headquarters was seized, computers were taken, and Twitter posts from WikiLeaks director and journalist, Julian Assange, suggest they may fear for their lives. This comes after WikiLeaks published a document leaked from the Pentagon suggesting ways to discredit and eliminate the website in March of 2008. This all confirms a long held suspicion that the government of the United States is very much involved in official censorship, not unlike the government of China. This can be considered even more significant than China’s censorship, when factoring in the wars the United States is involved in.
President John F. Kennedy once said,
"The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."
These words ring truer today than they did when they were spoken almost half a century ago. Why do we condemn China for their policies of censorship when we have a problem right here in our own country? If the government is actively engaged in intimidating media and whistle-blowers, we can only infer they are doing things they don’t want us to know about.
Of course there will always be a need for security in protecting American lives that may be endangered, but what we are seeing here goes beyond that purpose. It shows that there are people on the government payroll whose job it is to figure out how to discredit and stifle the truth.
This has implications for many things, not least of which is your desire to choose the type of society you want to live in. If the government is so secretive that it is stifling information, which is being delivered by patriotic Americans who are putting themselves at great risk, how will we ever attain a full picture and decide for ourselves what direction the country should go in? How will we be able to decide when the government goes too far? We as a free people in an open society, should be afforded every ability to access and digest information that can help inform our decisions. It is the job of no man to tell another what he should think.
Another implication is in the role of government. In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment recognizes full and unabridged freedom of the press. The actions taken against WikiLeaks seem a clear infraction of First Amendment freedoms. We can also infer from this that the government is involved in deciding what is good to release to the public and what is not. Someone, being paid by your tax dollars, is deciding just how much you are going to be allowed to know, if anything at all.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide the government with powers over the minds of man. The Federal government and all agencies involved should not be permitted to exercise these assumed powers. It is the duty of the American people to inform themselves and make their own decisions. It is not the duty of the military, government, or intelligence agencies to mold public opinion or prevent the truths of war from becoming known to the people.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
In Support of 'The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading..." Amendment to Intelligence Authorization Act 2010
I am posting a response to this latest call to action, quoted below.
Subject: CALL MCMAHON TODAY ABOUT THIS
718-351-1062/202-225-3371
Dear Members,
Today Liz Cheney, the chairman of Keep America Safe, released the following
statement in response to a late-night provision added to the House of
Representatives' intelligence authorization bill that will be voted on later
this afternoon. We urge all Keep America Safe members to contact their House of
Representatives member and tell him or her to vote against the intelligence
authorization bill.
"Late last night, Democrats in the House of Representatives inserted a provision
dubbed 'The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Act of 2010' into the
intelligence authorization bill. This new language targets the US intelligence
community with criminal penalties for using methods they have deemed necessary
for keeping America safe. These methods have further been found by the
Department of Justice to be both legal and in keeping with our international
obligations.
"American intelligence officers do not deserve this kind of treatment from the
government they honorably serve. Day in and day out, they protect our country
and make difficult decisions--at times in matters of life and death. In return
for their service the government rewards them with little pay and no
acknowledgement of their heroic actions. Democrats in Congress now want to
threaten them with criminal prosecutions and deprive them of valuable tactics
that protect America.
"We urge the Congress to vote against the intelligence authorization bill in its
current form."
Liz Cheney
Chairman
Keep America Safe
In response, I must disagree with Liz Cheny, and perhaps all Chenys walking the Earth. Protections against torture and cruel/unusual punishments are built right into our Constitution's Bill of Rights. Our founder's put this provision in, not because they read George Orwell's 1984, but because they lived in a reality where this was regular business.
Equal application of law and of the Constitution apply to all, or in spirit, should. Any attempt to exclude a select group from laws - especially to grant extraordinary powers to an arm of government - especially a secretive, shadow government-type agency such as the CIA - is triple disasterous and an affront to Liberty and rule of law.
I am curious as to why one should support, and call on tea party members to support, a subversion of the rule of law on behalf of government. What about equal application of the law and the Constitution? Exempting Federal Agents from the law will only serve to further undermine the civil liberties we still have left in this country, and to further make a mockery of our so called "justice" system.
I am more afraid of my own government than I am of foreignors. Giving the stamp of approval of the American people to commit acts prohibited by our Bill of Rights, is the last thing they need. As an American who believes in the rights of man, I demand our government stop torturing for my own good and stop violating the liberties of all in the name of my "safety".
Does the Tea Party stand for Liberty, or does it stand for turture? This call to action seems to imply it stands for torture.
Sincerely,
Tom V
Staten Island
Subject: CALL MCMAHON TODAY ABOUT THIS
718-351-1062/202-225-3371
Dear Members,
Today Liz Cheney, the chairman of Keep America Safe, released the following
statement in response to a late-night provision added to the House of
Representatives' intelligence authorization bill that will be voted on later
this afternoon. We urge all Keep America Safe members to contact their House of
Representatives member and tell him or her to vote against the intelligence
authorization bill.
"Late last night, Democrats in the House of Representatives inserted a provision
dubbed 'The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Act of 2010' into the
intelligence authorization bill. This new language targets the US intelligence
community with criminal penalties for using methods they have deemed necessary
for keeping America safe. These methods have further been found by the
Department of Justice to be both legal and in keeping with our international
obligations.
"American intelligence officers do not deserve this kind of treatment from the
government they honorably serve. Day in and day out, they protect our country
and make difficult decisions--at times in matters of life and death. In return
for their service the government rewards them with little pay and no
acknowledgement of their heroic actions. Democrats in Congress now want to
threaten them with criminal prosecutions and deprive them of valuable tactics
that protect America.
"We urge the Congress to vote against the intelligence authorization bill in its
current form."
Liz Cheney
Chairman
Keep America Safe
In response, I must disagree with Liz Cheny, and perhaps all Chenys walking the Earth. Protections against torture and cruel/unusual punishments are built right into our Constitution's Bill of Rights. Our founder's put this provision in, not because they read George Orwell's 1984, but because they lived in a reality where this was regular business.
Equal application of law and of the Constitution apply to all, or in spirit, should. Any attempt to exclude a select group from laws - especially to grant extraordinary powers to an arm of government - especially a secretive, shadow government-type agency such as the CIA - is triple disasterous and an affront to Liberty and rule of law.
I am curious as to why one should support, and call on tea party members to support, a subversion of the rule of law on behalf of government. What about equal application of the law and the Constitution? Exempting Federal Agents from the law will only serve to further undermine the civil liberties we still have left in this country, and to further make a mockery of our so called "justice" system.
I am more afraid of my own government than I am of foreignors. Giving the stamp of approval of the American people to commit acts prohibited by our Bill of Rights, is the last thing they need. As an American who believes in the rights of man, I demand our government stop torturing for my own good and stop violating the liberties of all in the name of my "safety".
Does the Tea Party stand for Liberty, or does it stand for turture? This call to action seems to imply it stands for torture.
Sincerely,
Tom V
Staten Island
Civilian Trial of 9/11 Suspects
I would like to state a brief position and inquire about the position of others
on this issue.
I feel that our civilian courts are a very appropriate place for the trial of
suspected terrorists. There are obviously laws on the books, as part of
established city, state and federal codes, that address issues of conspiracy and
mass murder. Seeing as the crimes were committed against individuals, should not
the people's court see justice is served? While the nation was damaged as a
whole on 9/11, it is our brothers and sisters in the Tri-State area that were
lost that day. I want for us to bring those responsible to justice, rather than
an arbitrary tribunal. We are a nation of laws. A tribunal, in my mind, conjures
images of bending the law, as if our laws were not good enough to establish
these tragic crimes as wrong and provable.
Please share your opinions, thanks.
on this issue.
I feel that our civilian courts are a very appropriate place for the trial of
suspected terrorists. There are obviously laws on the books, as part of
established city, state and federal codes, that address issues of conspiracy and
mass murder. Seeing as the crimes were committed against individuals, should not
the people's court see justice is served? While the nation was damaged as a
whole on 9/11, it is our brothers and sisters in the Tri-State area that were
lost that day. I want for us to bring those responsible to justice, rather than
an arbitrary tribunal. We are a nation of laws. A tribunal, in my mind, conjures
images of bending the law, as if our laws were not good enough to establish
these tragic crimes as wrong and provable.
Please share your opinions, thanks.
Monday, January 25, 2010
MTA Service Cuts - yet again
The following is a brief letter I sent to Councilman Jim Oddo this morning. This doesn't nearly capture my absolute fury over the issue and the surrounding issues - a pathetic city bureaucracy that does nothing but increase taxes and decrease services, WHILE managing to somehow take away our liberties in a methodical and incremental manner. This mostly just concerns the MTA.
Dear Mr. Oddo
Let me start by wishing you good day. Hope all is well.
I live in Grant City. To get to work in the morning the X9 was the ideal bus, X1 was the backup bus. To hear that they will be slashing our x9 and x1 is purely unacceptable. Look at all of these cuts. It is a crime. Why does Staten Island float the bills for all of these bloated bureaucracies, and then bear the brunt of service cuts which devastate our abilities to commute to work in an acceptable time frame? Bad enough that the poor and disgraceful lack of infrastructure on the Island scares decent jobs away like a rabid dog chasing the mailman.
Why do the taxes of Staten Islanders, who must on the whole commute to Manhattan or New Jersey for any hope of a well paying job, continue to support this nonsense?
Mr. Oddo, you have been a faithful representative on the Council, and I shudder to think of what we may have had if not you in there. BUT - it is LONG past the time to take on the MTA, to get Staten Island's fair share, to improve our infrastructure with a train into Manhattan. No more promises, no more status-quo. Why do you remain oddly silent on such matters when we are getting shanghaied more and more each year by these clowns? It is an all out assault on this borough. Why do we need to pay a toll to get into Brooklyn that costs well over AN HOURS WAGES? How can that be justified?
This city grows more and more tyrannical as the years wear on. And as the years wear on, our patience is wearing thin. In fact, mine is gone.
Sincerely,
Thomas Vendittelli - free citizen of the United States of taxation
Dear Mr. Oddo
Let me start by wishing you good day. Hope all is well.
I live in Grant City. To get to work in the morning the X9 was the ideal bus, X1 was the backup bus. To hear that they will be slashing our x9 and x1 is purely unacceptable. Look at all of these cuts. It is a crime. Why does Staten Island float the bills for all of these bloated bureaucracies, and then bear the brunt of service cuts which devastate our abilities to commute to work in an acceptable time frame? Bad enough that the poor and disgraceful lack of infrastructure on the Island scares decent jobs away like a rabid dog chasing the mailman.
Why do the taxes of Staten Islanders, who must on the whole commute to Manhattan or New Jersey for any hope of a well paying job, continue to support this nonsense?
Mr. Oddo, you have been a faithful representative on the Council, and I shudder to think of what we may have had if not you in there. BUT - it is LONG past the time to take on the MTA, to get Staten Island's fair share, to improve our infrastructure with a train into Manhattan. No more promises, no more status-quo. Why do you remain oddly silent on such matters when we are getting shanghaied more and more each year by these clowns? It is an all out assault on this borough. Why do we need to pay a toll to get into Brooklyn that costs well over AN HOURS WAGES? How can that be justified?
This city grows more and more tyrannical as the years wear on. And as the years wear on, our patience is wearing thin. In fact, mine is gone.
Sincerely,
Thomas Vendittelli - free citizen of the United States of taxation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
