 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 493, November 16, 2008 "They Wanted Obama but voted for O'bomber"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Twinkies for Obama I have decided to respond to the election of Barack Obama with supreme silliness, as he deserves. I created "Twinkies for Obama", a one-page web site that invites you to send a Hostess Twinkie to the new president. It provides an address, his Senate office until January 20, the White House after that, and an "I SENT ONE" button you can press to record your gift. Send yours today! Bill St. Clair
To the Editor: In T.L.E. Number 492 (9 November 2008), Paul Bonneau writes of "repudiating the debt," by which it is supposed that he means the U.S. federal debt—the instruments of indebtedness issued by the U.S. Treasury Department. He writes: "'To repudiate' means to refuse to pay. Now, however unlikely this is, the government could repudiate the debt, as an act of Congress. It is a political action." This action is not only unlikely but—for the Congress—unthinkable. Except for the private sector securities recently accepted by the Federal Reserve System in the massive "bailout" schemes (said securities being of highly dubious value, the F.R.S. acting as "lender of last resort" on these instruments of debt because there is in the world no capital held privately or by foreign governments available to these illiquid, intemperate, and effectively bankrupt borrowers), America's sole currency-issuing entity holds as nominal backing for its circulating notes, coins, demand accounts, etc., only the promissory notes—the "I.O.U." paper—of the U.S. federal government. By "repudiating the debt," the Congress would serve instant notification to the entire world that the U.S. dollar is what it has been since Nixon closed the gold window on 15 August 1971. Not worth the paper it's printed upon. Unless there is another currency ready to replace the dollar in the three legitimate functions of money (as an intermediary commodity in the exchange of goods and services, as an acceptable standard of value, and as a reliable store of value over time), "repudiating the debt" would destroy not only the federal government's short-term ability to borrow but also catastrophically dislocate the national—indeed, the world's—division-of-labor economy. Should there be any action taken "repudiating the debt" of our federal government, it will come as a bolt out of the blue (much as did Nixon's action in 1971), with only a small minority of politically connected financiers—the real owners of Congress—able to anticipate, preserve their wealth against, and profit from this cataclysm. Richard Bartucci
The content herein is proprietary and confidential information, and is privileged (protected from disclosure). The information is intended for conveyance only to the designated recipients of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. [That's a mighty funny thing to put on the end of a Letter To The Editor—Editor] [A Reader forwarded the following link to me. In which the founder of The Weather Channel tells what he thinks about the Globular Warming Thing:] http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=29812 [—Editor] Jeffersonian Guard In light of our current system of Government that has broke the constitutional chains that I both have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Our nation has gone from a Free Constitutional Republic to a Despot State of Constitutional Oppression. I am currently forming a Constitutional Defense Regiment, The U.S. Jeffersonian Guard, a complete Volunteer group dedicated to defense of the peoples constitutional rights. To provide security to protesters and demonstrators and guarantee that their first amendment right will not be infringed up. Cecil Anthony Ince
California puzzles me. On the one hand, it is the homeland of Political Correctness. It is a reliable "Blue" state. On the other hand, California outlawed the ownership of land by Chinese and Japanese immigrants during the Nineteenth Century. I don't know of any southern state that outlawed land ownership by black people, even in Ante bellum times. I still remember the banning of services to immigrants in the Eighties. It's OK for them to work cheap because you don't have to provide health insurance, but it's wrong for them to go to the emergency ward if they or their families get sick or get injured working for you. I understand this law was finally declared unconstitutional. The popular vote to outlaw gay marriage in California is just one more example of this. Now I'm straight and Roman Catholic. I recognize that Churches may refuse to perform marriages as part of their First Amendment free exercise of religion. However, marriage is about combining assets. sharing custody of children. and guaranteeing inheritance rights for one's lover. and of course getting state sanction/support of these arrangements. Actually I understand California all too well. They're too greedy and cheap to let people own land, get the education, medical, and unemployment benefits they earn, and in a rush to steal people's inheritances. There is something very wrong with this, to recast the famous line from Seinfeld. A.X. Perez
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
Contents
Next
