Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Money Metals

by Anthony Wile

The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Dr. Lawrence Parks.

Introduction:

Lawrence Parks holds a Ph.D. in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York University and is the Executive Director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education (FAME). Dr. Parks was a student of free-market economist Murray Rothbard and has studied monetary issues for more than 30 years. He is the author of What Does Mr. Greenspan Really Think?, a popular book on the workings of the US monetary system. He has authored and produced more than 200 videos on topics dealing with the US monetary system, more than 50 of which are posted to www.LarryParks.com. His writings have appeared in Pensions & Investments, The Economist, Washington Times, The Freeman, American Outlook and National Review.

Daily Bell: Larry, perhaps more than almost anyone for the past 18 years at least, you’ve been devoting yourself to changing the monetary system. On the face of it this sounds like an impossible task, given that the entire planet has now adopted fiat money, what you call political money. Before we go further, take a moment to please explain what you mean by political money and how people are coerced into accepting it.

Larry Parks: Quite simply, political money is money that has value in the marketplace because politicians decree it so. In the literature this is most times referred to as fiat money, meaning arbitrary money.

The way politicians do this is they take an intrinsically worthless item, i.e., something that costs almost nothing to produce, such as a piece of paper, gussy it up with seals and signatures and pass a law making it legal tender for all debts public and private.

Legal tender is a concept that virtually everyone in the United States knew about up until the turn of the last century. Since that time, the concept has been taken out of the textbooks. Even though the phrase appears on every one of our pieces of paper money, hardly anyone knows what it means or why it is important.

Let me digress for a moment with a little bit of history.

The concept of legal tender morphs from a concept called forced tender. In the middle of the 13th century, when Marco Polo went to China, one of the things he noticed and remarked about was that the Chinese emperors had become fabulously rich issuing paper money. When Marco Polo returned to Europe and told the Europeans about paper money, they were disbelieving.

Why, they asked, would anyone accept a piece of paper in exchange for his goods and services? The answer was that if one did not accept the emperor’s money he would kill you. With legal tender you don’t get killed, but if you don’t accept it in payment of a debt by law you are not entitled to be paid.

Legal tender is the coercion in the monetary system. This is to say, irredeemable paper ticket money is not a free-market innovation. But in this instance coercion is not enough. There is also nondisclosure and misrepresentation of material information.

Daily Bell: When you talk about nondisclosure and misrepresentations, aren’t you in fact talking about fraud? Please explain a little more about that.

Larry Parks: You hit the nail right on the head and in fact our monetary system is demonstrably a fraud on the people. Here is some evidence:

I owe a great deal of this explanation to Dr. Edwin Vieira, the author of the magnificent Pieces Of Eight: The Monetary Powers And Disabilities of The United States Constitution.

It is certainly a tragedy that the history and basics of the United States monetary system are no longer taught anywhere. As a result, hardly anyone in the United States, and certainly not any place in the rest of the planet, has any idea about what a dollar is.

Virtually everyone believes that the pieces of paper that we carry around with the inscription “Federal Reserve Note” along with the image of George Washington or another president, the word “dollar,” and a whole bunch of signatures and seals are in fact real dollars. In fact, none of these pieces of paper are dollars.

Consider, the word dollar is used in the Constitution in two places but it is not defined in the Constitution. It used in connection with the slave tax, which is no more, but much more importantly, it’s used in the Seventh Amendment. That’s the amendment that guarantees you a right to a trial by jury for any dispute $20 or more.

In order for the Seventh Amendment to have objective meaning, the word dollar has to have objective meaning. And so the question arises: What is a “dollar” as used in the Constitution, which, as everyone should know, is the overriding law of the land. Every law has to be in conformity with the Constitution or else it is not a law.

If one looks at the history of money in the Colonies prior to the Revolution, one will find that the Spanish Milled Dollar was ubiquitous. Spaniards had built mints in many places and the Spanish Milled Dollar, the silver coin sometimes referred to as a Real and other times as a Piece of Eight, was the unit of account for most commercial transactions. Here is an image:

At the time of the Revolution, when the Colonies organized under the Articles of Confederation, the Articles gave the general government the power to issue paper money, at the time called emitting bills of credit, which were denominated in Spanish Milled Dollars. Here is an example:

One can see from the inscription they are to be redeemable into Spanish Milled Dollars or an equal sum in gold or silver.

After the Revolution and after the Constitution was ratified, the United States wanted to have its own coinage and did not want to rely on the Spanish mints. In other words the United States wanted to mint its own dollars.

In 1792, Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, wrote the Coinage Act of 1792. Here we see the first definition of a dollar: 371.25 grains of fine silver. Question: Where did Hamilton get that crazy number? If he was arbitrarily defining a dollar, why not choose 350 grains or 400 grains of silver?

The answer is that the government could not define an entirely new coinage because all of the pre-existing contracts were already denominated in dollars. A small complication was that Spanish Milled Dollars did not have a consistent weight, depending upon which of the Spanish mints produced them. That is, there were slight variations in the amount of silver in each coin.

The solution was to weigh, say, a thousand of the Spanish Milled Dollars and take the average weight. That’s where the 371.25 grains of silver came from. Another way of looking at this is that all Hamilton did was to put into law what was already a fact. The definition of a dollar has never been changed. It cannot be changed.

Here’s an example of the United States dollar that is in conformity with the Constitution pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792:

This is silver money. It is in fact and in law a one dollar coin as provided for by the Coinage Act of 1792. It is the dollar referred to in the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.

As one might imagine, it’s more than inconvenient to carry around any quantity of United States silver dollars. They are heavy, bulky, and just a bother. The solution was to deposit these dollars in a safe place, usually a bank, because a bank would have a big and secure vault, and take in exchange promissory notes from the bank or from some other depository. One would then carry around and transact using the promissory notes that promised to pay silver dollars instead of the actual silver dollars.

Here is an example of what one of these promissory notes looked like:

This is not a dollar. It is a promise to pay a dollar. (The words under Washington’s image read: “Will Pay To The Bearer On Demand ONE DOLLAR”)

In time, people did not redeem their promissory notes for silver dollars. They left the silver dollars at the depository. Because they trusted the depository, they circulated the promissory notes. Why would they redeem? What would they do with the silver dollars once they had them? The same state of affairs applied to promissory notes whereby gold was the promised coin.

Eventually, the issuer of the promissory notes realized that people were not redeeming. The issuers in most cases were banks. And so when people applied at a bank for a loan, the bank would issue them promissory notes redeemable on demand for gold or silver for which the bank did not have gold or silver. The jargon for this is called fractional reserve lending. It is enormously profitable for a bank to loan someone a piece of paper and charge 8% interest on the nominal amount.

Leaving out a great deal of history, eventually there came a time when the issuing authorities were asked to redeem their promissory notes. Because they had over issued, they didn’t have enough specie. In fact, they were bankrupt. What to do?

With the connivance of politicians who some suggest were bribed with what are euphemistically called campaign contributions, banks defaulted on the promissory notes. They then issued pieces of paper, still called notes even though they were not notes, but left off the promise to pay dollars. Incredibly, they got away with misrepresenting these defaulted promises to pay dollars, as if they were dollars.

In other words, the broken promises to pay dollars became dollars. This is a gross misrepresentation. As a practical matter, people were precluded from objecting, because by law these pieces of paper were deemed to be legal tender. Here is what these broken promises look like:

This is a broken promise to pay a dollar. (The phrase under Washington’s image “ONE DOLLAR” is a misrepresentation. This is neither in fact nor in law a dollar. Even though it says NOTE, it is not a promissory note.)

Daily Bell: I see what you mean. Why don’t people object? How did it happen that people all over the world got tricked by this?

Larry Parks: I’ll get into that more in just a moment. I want to first tell you another story that will shed some further light on this. I refer to an article written by perhaps the most admired, revered and respected Wall Street personality on the planet, Warren Buffett.

In a recent terrific book about Warren Buffett and his writings, Tap Dancing to Work: Warren Buffett on Practically Everything, 1966-2012, by Carol Loomis, Buffett writes about stocks having four classes of shareholders: A, B, C and D shareholders.

“Investors in American corporations already own what might be thought of as a Class D stock. The Class A, B, and C stocks are represented by the income-tax claims of the federal, state, and municipal governments. It is true that these “investors” have no claim on the corporation’s assets; however, they get a major share of the earnings, including earnings generated by the equity buildup resulting from retention of part of the earnings owned by the Class D shareholders.

“A further charming characteristic of these wonderful class A, B, and C stocks is that their share of the corporation’s earnings can be increased immediately, abundantly, and without payment by the unilateral vote of any one of the “stockholder” classes, e.g., by congressional action in the case of Class A. To add to the fun, one of the classes will sometimes vote to increase its ownership share in the business retroactively — as companies operating in New York discovered to their dismay in 1975. Whenever the class A, B, or C “stockholders” vote themselves a larger share of the business, the portion remaining for class D – that’s the one held by ordinary investor— declines.”

This raises an interesting question with regard to our monetary system. Since the monetary authorities claim the power, at their whim, to increase the money supply, in Mr. Greenspan’s exact words, “without limit,” thereby depreciating the purchasing power of money that exists as well as the purchasing power of money that’s been promised for future payment, why is this materially different from politicians unilaterally declaring for themselves, or rather the government they represent, a larger share, or all of, the accumulated savings of the entire population?

The principal difference, in my view, is that in theory politicians are answerable to the people at election time, whereas the monetary authorities are independent. That is to say, as a practical matter the monetary authorities can do whatever they want whenever they want. The issue in hand is sovereignty, who is ultimately in charge.

This is not the way our government is supposed to be constituted according to the Constitution.

Very importantly, for the government to distribute, spend, or otherwise authorize payments, transfers, or gifts to anyone, there is supposed to first be a bill offered in the House of Representatives and approved, and then confirmed by the Senate and sent to the president. The president may then veto the bill, at which time the Congress has an opportunity to override his veto. Or, if the president does nothing, after a period the bill automatically becomes law.

When it comes to distributions of money by the monetary authorities, as President Nixon‘s H. R. Haldeman might have said, the Constitution is no longer operational.

Daily Bell: So what you seem to be saying, Larry, is that the Constitution has been usurped in order to facilitate what is clearly a fraud on the people with regard to our money.

Larry Parks: Absolutely.

Daily Bell: So how does this get fixed?

Larry Parks: I would like to spend the rest of this interview outlining what I believe is a clear roadmap of the steps needed to change the monetary system both at home and abroad and how to implement those steps.

When I organized FAME, the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education, a 501c3 public charity in 1995, my original concept was that the media, especially the mainstream media, de facto puts issues on the national agenda primarily with op-eds, articles and analysis. It is very clear that this is not enough.

While there were more than 40,000 downloads of my What Does Mr. Greenspan Really Think? book and wide distribution over the Internet of articles that I and many others wrote about the monetary structure, at least up until the financial meltdown in 2007-2008 hardly anyone was questioning the long-term efficacy of the US dollar.

These days, there is a lively debate at home and abroad that James Rickards has characterized as currency wars in his book Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis.

Daily Bell: Let me interrupt you. Mindful of what you say, with some minor exceptions such as Malaysia, and perhaps mentions of gold by Russia’s Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev, there’s not a lot of action. Please get down to specifics.

Larry Parks: Okay. Working backwards, in order to change the monetary structure, or any important social change, there needs to be legislation. In order to get legislation enacted in the United States, there needs to be lobbying.

I have first-hand primary source confirmation that the United States Congress does not take up legislation on its own. With the possible exception of legislation resulting from some kind of emergency, pretty much all legislation is proposed by lobbyists who have been retained by special interests.

Let me describe the process.

The first step is referred to as buying academic cover. The notion is that before any legislation can be proposed there needs to be intellectual justification, i.e., a case for the legislation has to be made.

As Murray Rothbard pointed out years ago, the function of intellectuals in society is to legitimatize ideas. That’s what they do. But what Murray Rothbard did not say, and which is crucially important, is that the intellectuals must be paid.

In other words, intellectuals have secular needs that must be met before they can do their work. They have families, mortgages, car payments and all the baggage that other people have. Even if they wanted to it would be highly unusual if they could work for free.

The financial sector has this process down, in my view, better than any other sector. For more than 100 years the financial sector has been buying academic cover with a combination of prizes, endowed chairs, honorariums, research grants, consulting assignments, etc.

For example, the so-called Nobel Prize in economics is not one of those prizes endowed by Alfred Nobel. It came in 1968 and the endower is the Central Bank of Sweden. It’s a bank prize. It is not given to someone who questions the efficacy of irredeemable paper ticket money or the legitimacy or the honesty of central banking.

The Federal Reserve, as another example, has over the years hired as consultants or as Visiting Scholars virtually all of the monetary economists in the country, as related to me by Dr. Robert Auerbach, the author of the superb Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan’s Bank.

When he was one of the principal legislative aides for Henry Gonzalez, when Henry Gonzalez headed the House Banking Committee, Auerbach collected 305 consulting agreements that the Federal Reserve entered into with academic monetary economists.

At the time, he showed some of these agreements to a journalist, Stephen Davies, then and perhaps now a journalist for the American Banker and the Bond Buyer, two establishment publications. Davies wrote an article entitled “Some Lawmakers Claim Fed Keeps Critics at Bay with Jobs.” He quotes from the contracts that these academic monetary economists entered into whereby they promise not to say anything bad about the Federal Reserve.

Wrote Davies:

“Moreover, in the case of the Federal Reserve Board, all contractors are required to sign a non-disclosure statement promising to keep all information confidential. The statement is broadly worded to prohibit the release of any information ‘relating to past, present, or future activities’ that can be considered ‘damaging to the board.’”

Henry Gonzalez is quoted in the article:

“The Fed is simply buying off potential critics by holding out contracts that offer academics extra money and use of the Fed’s facilities. No agency that has to justify its spending would dream of this kind of extravagance and waste.”

I could go on and on with this and fill the entire interview with stories about how the financial sector has acquired academic cover to legitimatize irredeemable legal tender paper ticket money.

Daily Bell: What’s the next step?

Larry Parks: The empirical evidence has conclusively shown that it’s not enough to develop incontrovertible evidence in support of an issue and expect that evidence to be acted upon. Our own experience of putting this evidence onto the Internet and somehow expecting people to find it and act on it illustrates the point.

There must be distribution so that it is picked up by mainstream media and especially by the New York Times and or/the Wall Street Journal and/or the Financial Times and by the major television broadcasters.

To get this done there are two principal distribution channels: public relations agencies and think tanks.

The role of public relations agencies is to get placed in mainstream media op-eds, articles, exposés, book reviews, investigative reports and the like. Public relations agencies do this by hiring as staff people who were formerly editors or journalists for mainstream media publications, and former producers and other former senior employees of major television broadcasters.

What these folks bring to the table are relationships with current editors, producers etc. who then publish the materials created by the intellectuals.

Think tanks also serve as a distribution channel and, in addition, they sometimes provide intellectual legitimacy for possible legislation. Think tanks many times hire as staff people who have hands-on policy experience and, as opposed to pure academics, have worked and/or published in fields in which they are considered expert.

Typically, think tanks will be engaged to prepare studies, position papers, proposals and the like after which they hold conferences as well as publish these materials. As with public relations agencies, think tank experts may also have relationships with the major media.

At conferences, where think tank research may be presented, the media is invited. Many times conferences are held at a swank resort location. At panel discussions, experts, who may be experts only because they are the ones who have been awarded the prizes or the endowed chairs or who, as a result, become Head of Department, or who are acknowledged by the industry as being the top people, also give forth with intellectual ammunition arguments, narratives and the like that will lead to the desired legislation.

Daily Bell: If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that after intellectuals have legitimatized ideas, by retaining public relations agencies and think tanks these ideas somehow make it into the mainstream media. Do I have that right?

Larry Parks: Yes. I’m describing how an issue gets onto the national agenda. Now comes the more difficult part: how to translate an issue that’s on the national agenda into legislation.

This is where the lobbyists come in. My source for how this works is a wonderful book that was authored in 2010 by Robert Kaiser entitled So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. Robert Kaiser, by the way, is the former managing editor of the Washington Post. The book relates how Washington lobbying has evolved as told through the eyes of Gerald Cassidy, arguably America’s premier lobbyist.

The lobbyists have two functions: first, to facilitate campaign contributions to our elected representatives and, second, with the help of industry representatives, to craft and coordinate with congressional staff proposed legislation.

It’s the campaign contributions that our elected representatives are most interested in. To be fair, in order for these folks to be reelected they need to buy television time, which is costly. So if they don’t somehow acquire significant funding, which today many times means millions of dollars, they are out!

After the legislation is proposed, in order for the politicians to vote for it there needs to be what’s known as political cover. What this means is that in support of proposed legislation hearings will be held and experts will be invited to testify either in support of or in opposition to the legislation. In this way, if things don’t turn out as hoped or as planned, the fallback position for the politicians is that they relied on the experts.

Who do you suppose those experts testifying in support of proposed financial legislation are going to be? In almost all cases they will be the same academics to whom those interested in passing legislation have provided the prizes, endowed chairs, research grants, consulting assignments, etc. along with think tank experts who they have also retained.

That’s the process.

Daily Bell: Okay, that makes sense. So tell us, in the case of changing the monetary system, where are we in the process? Is there academic cover? Are there any think tanks that support changing the monetary structure? Have any lobbyists been retained?

Larry Parks: In many ways it may appear that we’re not even at the starting gate. In addition, as you pointed out at the start of this interview, irredeemable legal tender paper ticket money is in use worldwide. Moreover, the financial sector has had virtually 100% success in co-opting the world’s monetary economists.

On March 11, 2009, the Financial Times ran a fairly lengthy article entitled “Fifty who will frame a way forward,” by Lionel Barber, about the 50 most influential people who will be called upon to fix the world’s economy. The 50 people consisted of bankers, central bankers, heads of financial institutions, financial economists, academics who have legitimatized the paper money, politicians and only three people from industry. Labor was not represented.

When I saw this article my first reaction was that the same people who are responsible for the catastrophe the world is experiencing, to say nothing of the debacle that’s coming when the irredeemable paper ticket money finally collapses, are going to be called upon to suggest remedies.

But what is unstated is that the financial sector, which these people represent, has a conflict of interest with almost everyone else, including industrialists, workers, small countries and ordinary people everywhere.

What almost everyone wants in their lives is stability: stable purchasing power for their savings, stable and secure pensions, stable housing prices, stable interest rates, stable foreign exchange rates, stable balance sheets and so on. Parenthetically, they want declining prices and increasing quality for consumer items. That’s what an increasing standard of living means.

The financial sector, because it makes so much of its profits from trading, does not want stability. It wants volatility.

Tragically, the structure of the world’s monetary system has been left in the hands of financial players. They have rigged that system for their own benefit and to the detriment of everybody else.

Daily Bell: You have outlined in a credible way the steps needed to change the system, but as a practical matter, you need to fill in some of the blanks about how all of this can be implemented. I agree with you on all the steps but you have left out something critically important: Every step you’ve described is going to have to be paid for. Who is going to finance this?

Larry Parks: In my view, logical funders are those who have the most to gain in the very near term. That would include gold producers and those who have large positions in gold equities and/or in gold.

Daily Bell: Are you suggesting this because you think, as do many others, that the gold standard is a remedy not only for this financial mess but also for bringing government spending on a worldwide basis back into line with what people can afford, and without having a monetary system whereby the authorities can create out of nothing unlimited amounts of new money?

Larry Parks: No. The gold standard is a dead-end and for several reasons. Allow me to digress for a moment to explain. It’s important to define exactly what is meant by the so-called gold standard. Sometimes you’ll see in the literature qualifications such as a “pure” or a 100% gold standard. This just adds to the confusion. In general, the gold standard is a piece of paper that is redeemable into, pegged to, backed by, or somehow linked to gold.

First of all, the gold standard is not a free-market innovation. It is an invention of the Bank of England. Its purpose was to allow that bank to leverage up on a small amount of gold to provide pieces of paper, which were nominally all redeemable into gold to help King William III finance his war against France in 1694.

Second, the gold standard is invitation to fraud. The reason is that the issuing authorities always issue more receipts for gold than for which they have gold by promising that receipts, a.k.a. banknotes or the like, may be redeemed for specie on demand.

At best that is a contingent promise and not an absolute promise. That is not disclosed. Depending upon how much confidence note holders have in the issuing authority, there is a tendency for the issuing authorities to over issue. Indeed, that is the history of the gold standard; there always comes a time when the temptation to over issue is so overwhelming that the authorities cannot resist. The Catholic Church has a line for this and the Catholic Church has this exactly right: “In the face of temptation reason succumbs.”

Third, the gold standard is not authorized by the United States Constitution. While today for most people the Constitution is a dead letter, people should pay more attention, in my view, to the benefits of the rule of law.

Fourth, empirically the gold standard is a failed system. As Lord Keynes pointed out in what is perhaps his best book, The Economic Consequences of Peace, the gold standard is a barbarous relic. It was for good reason that it was abandoned worldwide. This is well understood and agreed upon by those who have studied the issue.

As an interesting aside, Dr. Mark Skousen reported that at the last national American Economic Association annual meeting there was only one issue that had unanimous support among all of the economists present: that we should not return to the gold standard.

In sum, it makes no sense to advocate for a system that is statist, an invitation to fraud, not authorized by the Constitution and which has empirically failed.

Daily Bell: So if it’s not a return to the gold standard why should gold producers have an interest in changing the monetary system?

Larry Parks: The reason is that gold as money is and has been throughout history the free-market choice for money when gold is available. A little caveat here: Gold is not and has never been convenient for small day-to-day purchases. Its most important use is for transferring wealth, especially large transactions, over time. For day-to-day transactions a subsidiary coinage, or even tokens or paper, such as a New York City Metrocard, would be better than gold or silver money.

Tokens, however, without legal tender coercion, and with full disclosure and no misrepresentations of material information, would not be accepted for securing future payments, such as pensions or rents. For that one needs real money.

Daily Bell: Certainly you are not suggesting that people will walk around with coins.

Larry Parks: No, of course not. As in prior years people will deposit their gold or their silver or other coins and receive promissory notes in exchange, or alternatively, as is done now, people will pay for goods and services using credit cards, checks, or something similar.

Daily Bell: But aren’t you coming back to a de facto gold standard? What is the difference between what you envision and the gold standard?

Larry Parks: The difference is that the free market disallows legal tender. Also, and vitally important, there must be full disclosure, e.g., that the notes are not money, and no misrepresentations. In that case, for example, what we call Federal Reserve Notes would be labeled “Federal Reserve Tokens.” That has a little bit of a different ring to it, don’t you think?

Just as a check is not money, as illustrated above, a piece of paper that is a promise to pay money is not money. Howard Katz, the author of The Paper Aristocracy, had a clever metaphor to illustrate this.

Imagine that you go into a restaurant, check your coat and receive in exchange a coat check. Then, the restaurant steals your coat. When you present your coat check, they tell you that the coat check is a coat. You object. And then you are informed that the coat check is legal tender for a coat. It sounds absurd, and it is absurd, but that’s exactly how our present monetary system evolved.

Without legal tender people reject political money for future payment in favor of real money. As an aside, and I’m getting a little bit ahead of myself here, after Congressman Dr. Ron Paul proposed his first Free Competition in Currency Act, which, among other things got rid of legal tender, he wrote Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, to ask if he would support the bill.

Mr. Greenspan wrote back—I have a copy of his letter; it is appended to my congressional testimony, and here  – where he wrote that as long as we have fiat money we have to have legal tender. That’s right. If you want to have political money, you’re going to have to force people to use it.

We should note the concept of legal tender is something that in years past was repugnant for ordinary people. For example, after the Revolution Thomas Paine, sometimes referred to as the Father of the Revolution on account of his widely read pamphlet Common Sense, wrote that any member of Congress who proposed legal tender should be put to death!

At the end of the 19th century the American Labor Movement was still complaining about legal tender. During the election of 1896, when William McKinley ran against William Jennings Bryan, in the American Federationist, Labor asked the exact right questions about legal tender: If our money is good and would be preferred by the people, why must they be forced to use it? If our money is not good and would not be preferred by the people, why should they be forced to use it?

Daily Bell: In our day many pundits, such as Peter Bernstein in his book The Power of Gold: The History of an Obsession, made the claim that people buy gold out of “stupidity and cupidity.” But you seem to be saying something else. It sounds like your position is that people choose gold as money for good and rational reasons. Please expand on that a little more.

Larry Parks: Sure. There are two reasons why society chooses gold as money when gold is available.

First, there’s an important principle which was well understood at the turn of the 20th century and written about by Carl Menger, later on by Ludwig von Mises and by Murray Rothbard. These days that principle has been taken out of the textbooks.

Sometimes it’s called marketability or salability. What it teaches is that if you line up all of the commodities that could possibly be used for money, such as gold, silver, copper, salt, cattle, tobacco and so on, and offer ever-increasing amounts of each into the marketplace, the commodity for which the buy/sell spread increases the least is the most efficient medium of exchange for transferring wealth over time. That commodity is gold.

Empirically, cross-culture, cross-time and cross-geography, no matter where you drop in on the planet, in the eighth century in China, in biblical times in the Mideast, in Renaissance times in Europe, you find gold being used as money when gold was available. How was that possible? Did a directive somehow come down from the heavens?

Another way of looking at this is that with gold as money you have the least amount of waste for transferring wealth over time. For example, if you used cups of coffee as money and passed around the cups, you would have spillage. With gold as money there is no spillage.

Second, with the minor exception being silver, and silver is today irrelevant as a monetary metal, only gold has more than a year’s worth of production above ground. For example, for gasoline there is a three-week supply, for oil a six-month supply, for platinum a six-month supply and so on. With gold there is more than 70 years’ worth of production above ground that could easily be brought to market.

The benefit from a monetary system point of view is that if new gold mines are discovered or present ones close down, on account of the large amount of gold already above ground, pricing relationships into the future will remain stable. No other commodity offers that benefit.

It is for these two reasons that one can be confident that if all the facts are on the table and there is no coercion free people will again choose gold as money.

Daily Bell: Well said. I remember you telling me that when you first started FAME it had been your view that gold producers would embrace your program and provide the funding. That never happened. So explain why, after all this time, gold producers may take a different view of repositioning gold away from jewelry back to its monetary uses.

Larry Parks: Times change. Today there has been almost a complete turnover in the chief executives of the major gold producers. More importantly, what is really catching their interest in the last several years has been the incredible divergence between the price of gold and the market capitalization of their companies.

Up until a few years ago buying shares in a gold producer gave one positive leverage on the price of gold. No more. In fact, as the price of gold has increased the market capitalization of almost the entire industry has decreased.

The chairman of one of the very largest gold producers, after spending nearly an hour with me, told me that he viewed the divergence as a shift in investment from gold equities to the gold ETF in order to avoid political, operational and geographical risk.

Other top industry people, in addition to pundits, newsletter writers, fund managers and analysts, theorize that the lack of appreciation or rather the depreciation in gold equities has mostly to do with the misallocation of assets. In other words, inept management in allocating resources is at root responsible for the poor showing in gold equities. Part of the remedy, in their view, is to change management, which accounts in part for the CEO turnover.

Daily Bell: But you have a different point of view. I can’t wait to hear about it.

Larry Parks: Before explaining this I want to of acknowledge another debt I owe to a man who is arguably the best investor on the planet: Warren Buffett. In addition to Mr. Buffett’s investment genius, he is also a better wordsmith and I will ever be.

In his writings, particularly in his Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report letter to shareholders, he very succinctly describes what he believes drives share appreciation: the expected return on assets. Another way of looking at this is that the trend in earnings is an indicator for future earnings. So it’s not just current earnings that determine market capitalization. As many have pointed out, the stock market is a forecasting mechanism for what can be expected in the future.

How does this apply to gold producers?

One of the most brilliant executives in the gold business, maybe the most brilliant, is Pierre Lassonde, now the chairman of Franco-Nevada. Here is a chart that he put up last year at the Denver Gold Conference and then again a few months ago at a conference hosted by Jim Grant.

It shows the Bloomberg median projections for the price of gold as calculated by sell side analysts. Each of the lines, starting with the line on the lower left, which starts with the year 2007, shows the price of gold projections for the next several years. The line on the top of the 2007 projections shows the five-year projection beginning in year 2008, and so on.

Two observations jump out of the plot: First, the forecasted price of gold estimates by the sell side analysts have been consistently wrong for the past six years and second, they are consistently bearish on the future price of gold.

Here’s another example of lowball price assumptions, this one by Morgan Stanley from November 20, 2012.

Some industry observers now believe that on average the all-in cost of producing gold is about $1,100 an ounce. It has also been suggested, correctly in my view, that by sell side analysts forecasting the future price of gold approaching $1,100 an ounce, they are de facto forecasting the demise of the gold mining industry.

Returning to Buffett’s insight, by sell side analysts projecting lower future prices for gold they are, in effect, projecting lower returns on assets for gold producers.

Daily Bell: I get it. What you’re saying is that the lowball forward estimates of the price of gold by the sell side analysts imply a lower return on assets for gold equities, and that gets reflected in lower market capitalizations today than if the forward estimates were for a higher price of gold.

Larry Parks: Exactly.

Daily Bell: So the key to this, it seems to me, is that the divergence between the price of gold and the market capitalization of gold producers has almost entirely to do with these empirically wrong forecasts by the sell side analysts.

Larry Parks: Right. Let me put a little more flesh on this argument as a segue into why I believe the gold producers will support our program to reposition gold.

Daily Bell: You have my complete attention.

Larry Parks: It used to be, going back as recently as seven years, that the market capitalization of gold producers had four components: 1) a value assigned to current production; 2) a value assigned to proven and probable gold reserves – in fact, investing in a gold producer was viewed by some as an unexpiring call option on gold in the ground; 3) a value assigned to measured and indicated gold in the ground; and 4) a value assigned to the possibility, or probability, of an increase in the proven and probable, either by new discovery of gold on the property or because measured and indicated reserves could be reclassified as proven and probable.

By lowballing the future price of gold, sell side analysts are discounting almost all value to be assigned to the proven and probable, to the measured and indicated, and to the possibility of increasing proven and probable either by discovering new gold on the property or by measured and indicated becoming economic. In effect, they are primarily valuing current production and severely discounting the other factors.

Daily Bell: Very interesting. But how does this relate to support from gold producers for FAME’s program to change the monetary structure?

Larry Parks: Thank you again for asking the exact right question. The issues for the gold producers should be: How do sell side analysts arrive at these consistently wrong estimates for the forward price of gold; and, what can be done to cause them to change whatever methodology they are currently relying on?

Because the sell side forward price estimates are many times accompanied by a great deal of verbiage about the economy, expected interest rates, gold offtake for jewelry, investor purchases of bars, official sector selling or buying gold, projections of future costs of getting gold out of the ground and many other factors, investors cannot be faulted for thinking that the resulting price of gold estimates are based on careful analysis and have information value.

None of this is true. I have done considerable research over a two-year period into how these estimates are arrived at. I have it now from multiple primary sources that these estimates are nothing more than moving averages of the price of gold. In other words, there is virtually no information value added.

Here is a chart showing the average price of gold for each year from the year 2000 to 2012.

One does not have to be a mathematical genius to recognize that, as the price of gold has increased every year for the past 12 years, if at any point one takes an average going forward, the price for the forward year is always going to be less than the peak year.

Further, as the price of gold accelerated in 2010 and 2011, the forward estimate is going to be a steep decrease. That is precisely what Mr. Lassonde’s chart shows.

Daily Bell: Okay. I see this and it makes perfect sense. But you have not yet made the case why the gold producers should embrace FAME’s program to reposition gold.

Larry Parks: This means there needs to be repositioning of gold from its primary use being adornment to its primary use being money. In that case, gold offtake for jewelry is irrelevant.

The argument for gold as money is overwhelmingly bullish for the relative valuation of gold. I hope I am not going into too much detail for your readers. I still want to cover why I believe that Organized Labor will help provide the lobbying muscle to get the required legislation passed.

Daily Bell: Can you give us an estimate of the upside for gold producers were they to support FAME’s program to reposition gold?

Larry Parks: Yes. Back of the envelope, very quickly, consider the valuation paradigm that was used, say, 10 years ago. Consider the price of gold today is about $1,600 an ounce. The market capitalization of the entire gold-mining sector is about $250 billion. The all-in cost of producing gold on average is thought to be about $1,100 an ounce. The proven and probable for the industry is roughly 1.1 billion ounces – call it 1 billion ounces. Calculating the value of a proven and probable ounce is simply $1,600 minus the all-in cost of production of $1,100, or $500.

Thus, before discounting for political, operational and geographical risk, the proven and probable has a market value of about $500 billion. I would suggest that discounting this $500 billion by 50% is too much and that even at the current price of gold the industry has left something on the order of $200 billion of market capitalization on the table.

To drive home the absurdity of current valuations, let me just take a moment to give you an example with what might be the stellar exploration company, Seabridge Gold. This is a company in a politically safe jurisdiction in Canada, with roughly 46 million ounces of gold proven and probable whose gold is being valued at roughly $10 an ounce. It may very well be that the company may never be acquired by a major producer, as hoped for by current shareholders, and the mine may never go into production.

In my view, to discount that possibility by 98% makes no sense. But the market is saying that, based on future projections for the price of gold, Seabridge does not have a future. If the forecast for the future price of gold was, say, $5,000 an ounce, for which a very good case can be made, in my view, I think one can conclude that the market capitalization of Seabridge would be a multiple of where it is today.

Daily Bell: What you say makes a lot of sense but I think you have your work cut out for you to make this case to the gold producers. I want to come back to something you alluded to earlier when you suggested that Organized Labor might lobby for legislation that would lead to changing our monetary system. Talk to that issue.

Larry Parks: Contrary to what some who advocate for changing the monetary system believe, there is no magic bullet, no switch that can be flipped, and absent a complete collapse of the dollar, no quick legislation that can be passed. I think it’s fair to say that presently there is no significant constituency for changing our monetary system. There are, however, rumblings about this, especially in Russia, East Asia and a little bit in Latin America.

In the last century there have been maybe two or three dozen currency collapses. The loss of savings, pensions, jobs and suffering notwithstanding, all of the countries involved have somehow muddled through and are thought to be at some stage of recovery.

It’s important to recognize, however, that in every case they had an alternate currency. That alternate currency was the dollar. When the paper ticket legal tender irredeemable dollar finally meets the fate of all political money, which is that its purchasing power approaches its cost of production, which is near zero, here in the United States we have no alternate currency. Then what?

As a practical matter, mindful that it is virtually impossible to redefine the dollar, it is urgent that we enable an alternate currency. We need at all costs to avoid a discontinuity. If we can develop an alternate currency, there is the possibility of a transition.

The way to do that is to legislate what Congressman Dr. Ron Paul called his Free Competition in Currency Act. In January of this year Congressman Dr. Paul Broun reintroduced the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2013, HR 77. It needs a little bit of redrafting.

Ideally, this act should have three components: First, repeal legal tender. Second, get rid of all taxes on gold and silver. This provision is crucial because as things stand today, even though the Congress has passed legislation making it legal for one to enter into a gold clause contract, and even though the Congress has authorized $50 United States gold Eagles, and even though Congress has made these coins legal tender, the Internal Revenue Service through its tax rules has defeated this legislation.

The third component should be to open the mints to free coinage. What this means is that, if society concludes that the money supply needs to be increased, more gold and/or silver will be mined, one will take the specie to the mint and the mint will produce the coins.

Daily Bell: This is all very interesting and informative but I still haven’t heard why Organized Labor might be attracted to this legislation.

Larry Parks: Please excuse the digression; I need for you to understand where this is leading and what the endgame is. The hot button for Organized Labor is not changing the monetary structure. It is making sure that promises of pensions and benefits are kept and that working people will not become destitute when they retire and are no longer able to work.

Already, millions of steel workers, textile workers, airline workers and others have had their promises of pensions and benefits defaulted. All over the country defined benefit pension plans are under attack. We don’t have time in this interview to explore all of the manifestations of these attacks and what to do about them.

What I have already brought to the attention of some of the very top people in Organized Labor – and they are paying attention – is that their pension plans for a very long period have been, and continue to be, managed for the benefit of Wall Street and not for the benefit of pensioners. In effect, Wall Street has been looting defined benefit pension plans, legally, of course.

Daily Bell: Tell us how you tie this in with gold.

Larry Parks: The essence of the argument has to do with the fees that Wall Street garners, augmented by a bogus asset allocation methodology, called Modern Portfolio Theory, which, in order to maximize fees to Wall Street, has resulted in an almost nonexistent allocation to gold, according to Shayne McGuire who runs the gold unit for the Texas Teachers Retirement System, the fifth-largest retirement system in the United States.

Daily Bell: Talk first about the fees.

Larry Parks: Broadly speaking, there are three main fee categories: asset allocation fees, which are paid to consultants, money management fees for stock/security picking and transaction fees.

Depending upon the amount of money in a pension fund, and the same the structure applies to endowment funds and other kinds of funds, fees range from 60 or maybe 70 basis points for a very large fund, such as CALPERS or the Common Fund in New York, to as much as 400 basis points for a very small fund.

For example, I have audited financial statements from a million-dollar fund whereby the asset allocator alone charges 150 basis points, i.e., 1.5% per year. The assets are allocated to mutual funds, which charge an additional 100 basis points for stock selection. Some of these mutual funds also have an expense ratio of 125 basis points, some of which is forgiven.

And finally, although generally not disclosed, there are transaction costs, which, according to a study at the University of Virginia, average approximately 144 basis points. So all in, for this million-dollar fund, yearly fees are on the order of 4% per year.

This means that after 10 years, depending upon the amount of money in a particular fund, Wall Street garners fees somewhere between 7% and 40% of the fund. But as they say in the infomercials, wait, there’s more!

Every year, on account of new money being created out of nothing, our money loses purchasing power. Best case, according to the Federal Reserve, going back to the year 2000, the dollar has lost 25% of its purchasing power. This calculation uses for depreciation the Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and as illustrated in the plot below.

Many observers, including and especially Bill Gross who heads PIMCO, the largest fixed income money manager in the world, suggest that the calculation of the CPI is, in Mr. Gross’s exact words, “near fraudulent.”

Perhaps a more realistic estimate of the loss of purchasing power of the dollar is calculated by Mr. John Williams who publishes his findings on an Internet website called Shadowstats.com.

According to Mr. Williams, using the same methodology that was used in the 1980s to calculate the CPI, since the year 2000 the dollar has lost 66% of its purchasing power. I think you’ll agree that it’s fair to ask, after experiencing this loss of purchasing power and all the fees paid to Wall Street, what has been the benefit to the fund?

The answer is virtually no benefit at all. In fact, since the year 2000 the equity markets are flat. Had pension plan assets been allocated to gold, as can be seen from the plot above, plan assets would have benefited from a more than 600% increase in the value of gold against the dollar. Very significantly, for gold there were no down years!

Daily Bell: That’s pretty amazing. So tell us more about the justification for there being no allocation to gold. From the chart I can see that one would not have had to wait the entire 12 years but that at any point along the way an allocation to gold would have greatly improved the performance of pension plan assets.

Larry Parks: Here’s where Modern Portfolio Theory comes in. What Modern Portfolio Theory teaches is that for a given level of risk it’s possible to maximize the return on assets, and for a given level of return it’s possible to minimize the level of risk. Before one can do that, one needs to have a benchmark for risk against which to measure.

That benchmark is called the riskless rate of return. By definition it is the return one gets on United States 90-day or sometimes 30-day Treasury Bills. The fly in the ointment is that Modern Portfolio Theory uses a measure of risk that is virtually meaningless to pensioners.

Warren Buffett, again perhaps the clearest thinker on these matters in the world, has put his finger on the critical factor. When Wall Street talks about risk it is talking about volatility. In an excerpt from his Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, appearing in Fortune Magazine on February 26, 2012, Mr. Buffett wrote:

The riskiness of an investment is not measured by a Wall Street term encompassing volatility and often used in measuring risk, but rather by the probability – the reasoned probability – of that investment causing its owner a loss of purchasing power over his contemplated holding period.

Assets can fluctuate greatly in price and not be risky as long as they are reasonably certain to deliver increased purchasing power over their holding period.

And as we will see, a nonfluctuating asset can be laden with risk.

Investments that are denominated in a given currency include money-market funds, bonds, mortgages, bank deposits, and other instruments.

Most of these currency-based investments are thought of as ‘safe.’ In truth they are among the most dangerous of assets.

Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many countries, even as these holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal.

To be sure, Mr. Buffett is no fan of gold. Parenthetically, that’s because he doesn’t recognize its utility as money. Further, in my view, if one is going to position gold with its principal use as jewelry for adornment, then, as Mr. Buffett suggests, gold is indeed useless.

For me, the fact that Mr. Buffett suggests that an allocation to bonds can be laden with risk, and that bonds are among the most dangerous of assets, clearly illustrates that an allocation to United States bonds as being the result of the bogus allocation methodology which, to repeat, ignores the loss of purchasing power of United States dollars.

To drive this point home, here is a plot that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2013:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the average allocation to United States bonds for pension plans with assets of $5 billion or more is 23.4%. So why did Modern Portfolio Theory allocate to a guaranteed loser, and ignore an allocation to the biggest winner for the past 12 years, which was gold?

The answer is that the entire Wall Street money management industry, if one could call it that, is geared toward generating fees. If the clients get a good result, that’s a happy accident.

If funds are allocated to gold, except for a possible one-time fee for acquiring the gold, the fee stream stops!

I think you can see why this kind of presentation could easily result in allocations to gold in defined benefit pension plans.

These plans currently have something on the order of $10 trillion in assets. So even a small percentage allocated to gold would not only be a signal to the rest of the world that this is a prudent thing to do; it would also greatly increase the fortunes of the gold sector, while providing added security for pensioners.

With significant gold in their pension plans, Labor would have, as they say, skin in the game. There would be, in my view, a strong self-interest in supporting HR 77, the Free Competition In Currency Act.

Daily Bell: Very nice. I’m convinced. Larry, what you’ve described here is a tour de force. Having known you for more than 10 years, I am confident that you could add a lot more to this.

This has been an interesting and relevant interview. On behalf of our readers I want to thank you for taking the time.

Larry Parks:  It’s been my pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views to Daily Bell readers.

After Thoughts

A great interview. We thank Larry Parks for being so giving of his time and knowledge. Having studied with Murray Rothbard himself, Larry is formidably educated in free-market economics and has been at the forefront of the educational movement to explain how the current system needs to change.

One of the most noteworthy points in this interview (among many) is Larry’s insistence that a “gold standard” is not the solution to the current disastrous economic environment. We’re in agreement with this, having often stated that a state-mandated gold standard is merely another kind of price-fix. Larry makes a lot of good points.

Money competition is the answer. Gold and silver would probably be among the solutions, as they have been throughout recorded history … but gold and silver within a free-market environment, evolving naturally as money stuff, as they have before.

Bankers hate gold – or certainly in the hands of the masses. Even now they are seemingly colluding to bring the price down in order to generate a wave of panic selling and also to generate conditions in which they can buy more for less.

The antidote to various kinds of money mischief is available in interviews like this one. But at root, it is the simplest thing: End monopoly central banking. This modern plague upon the Earth is responsible for horrible price inflation, ruinous unemployment and endless centralization of industry and political power.

The longer monopoly central banking is able to create first booms and then destructive busts, the more authority accrues to Leviathan. The power to print money at will is an awesome one that makes certain people virtual gods on Earth.

The wars, poverty and social dysfunction plaguing the West all spring from this disease of fiat money issuance – unchecked and uncontrolled. We are sure that sooner or later the reality of central bank dysfunction will sink in and the public will begin to reject this pernicious practice. We see signs of that already.

Education is key here, and we are very grateful in this regard for Larry Parks’s efforts via FAME and for his general eloquence – and practical simplicity – when it comes to issues that can seem daunting and even incomprehensible.

Of course, not everyone, including ourselves, will agree entirely with every aspect of what Larry is suggesting but here is a sentiment that we are sure will be shared by many visitors to these pages: “Keep up the good work!”

www.thedailybell.com

h/t The Silver Bear Cafe dot com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnQkRUFmUAg

Part 2/2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJxLHFn2c4

Order “Age of Greed” by Jeff Madrick by clicking HERE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVbUmcQSuk

Click “Government Gone Wild” to learn more.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk-YdphEO7k

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Senator Warner -

I’ve known you, Sen. Warner, since the days back in Lynchburg, where you were chumming votes for your first senatorial run against the other Warner. I’ve trusted you, Sir. I’ve been to your Pig Roasts, I supported your work as Governor, and now I am expecting absolutely nothing less from you, Sir, of doing what YOU know is right for America. I will know by your votes where your loyalties lie, sir, and I can only trust that YOU will do what is right to protect our First Amendment, private property rights and our ability to grow our own damned food! 

I ask you Sir to VOTE Nay on the following bills before you -

1. FCC -- NET NEUTRALITY -- Give the Communist administration the middle finger, sir. Vote Nay!!! on anything remotely shutting down the people’s rights under the First Amendment. You, Sir, made your millions due to freedom aka capitalism and why one, especially you, sir, would ever vote Yay for this power grab is beyond me. Make my day and VOTE NAY! 

2. Vote an absolute “NO” on H.R. 2751 & FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -- you and I both know, sir, this bill, as is, screws the local farmer. I expect nothing less than a definitive NO! Yeah, I know the Farm Bureau wasn’t at the table in 2004, but I was, and I then and now absolutely represent the small farmer. Therefore, sir, I expect nothing less than a NAY!!!

3. Vote Nay on the Start Treaty! What the hell are you all debating this now for anyway?!? Good grief, give us all a break and vote Nay. Bring it back up in the winter or spring session. Fine. And let’s have a true debate on the pros and cons. Don’t let Brzezenski strong arm you, Sir. Vote No!!! Show your own strength!

Whether the T-Room blog survives this mess is one story, but sir, I can assure you that we are prepared to morph into a secondary vehicle to make sure ALL VIRGINIANS KNOW HOW YOU and Sen. Webb voted during this most dispicable spectacle that you critters call governing. Pandering is not governing. We, the people of Virginia, sent you and Sen. Webb to GOVERN!  

Helen Tansey
President
The T-Room
www.t-room.us

To: Sen. James Webb

Dear Sen. Webb,

The correspondence below was just sent to Sen. Mark Warner. I wish to forward it to your attention, Sir, and I request a true reply explaining to ME, Sir, how and why you voted the way you chose too on the below bills.

You see, Sir, I know you are on the short list to replace Gates. I am watching your votes, sir, especially on the Start Treaty b/c that vote WILL tell me and the rest of Virginia’s voters all we need to know as to where your loyalty lies.

Helen Tansey’s email to Sen. Mark Warner begins -

I’ve known you, Sen. Warner, since the days back in Lynchburg, where you were chumming votes for your first senatorial run against the other Warner. I’ve trusted you, Sir. I’ve been to your Pig Roasts, I supported your work as Governor, and now I am expecting absolutely nothing less from you, Sir, of doing what YOU know is right for America. I will know by your votes where your loyalties lie, sir, and I can only trust that YOU will do what is right to protect our First Amendment, private property rights and our ability to grow our own damned food! 

I ask you Sir to VOTE Nay on the following bills before you -

1. FCC -- NET NEUTRALITY -- Give the Communist administration the middle finger, sir. Vote Nay!!! on anything remotely shutting down the people’s rights under the First Amendment. You, Sir, made your millions due to freedom aka capitalism and why one, especially you, sir, would ever vote Yay for this power grab is beyond me. Make my day and VOTE NAY! 

2. Vote an absolute “NO” on H.R. 2751 & FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -- you and I both know, sir, this bill, as is, screws the local farmer. I expect nothing less than a definitive NO! Yeah, I know the Farm Bureau wasn’t at the table in 2004, but I was, and I then and now absolutely represent the small farmer. Therefore, sir, I expect nothing less than a NAY!!!

3. Vote Nay on the Start Treaty! What the hell are you all debating this now for anyway?!? Good grief, give us all a break and vote Nay. Bring it back up in the winter or spring session. Fine. And let’s have a true debate on the pros and cons. Don’t let Brzezenski strong arm you, Sir. Vote No!!! Show your own strength!

Whether the T-Room blog survives this mess is one story, but sir, I can assure you that we are prepared to morph into a secondary vehicle to make sure ALL VIRGINIANS KNOW HOW YOU and Sen. Webb voted during this most dispicable spectacle that you critters call governing. Pandering is not governing. We, the people of Virginia, sent you and Sen. Webb to GOVERN!  

Helen Tansey
President
The T-Room
www.t-room.us

UPDATE11, 12/19 -- Everyone could use a bit of encouraging words from Whitney. From the Preacher’s Wife starring Whitney and Denzel.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWa5vE4MUpU

Btw, I don’t know who the cool cat is on the left of the screen with the shades, but I might suggest replacing him with cool female cat, holsters on and all. Oh, and damn I wish I could dance like these folks…smooth and rockin! Love it!!!

UPDATE X10, 12/19 -- Since it is Sunday, I thought the insight shared by a friend of Neal’s at Neal Soapbox would be fitting -

The Story of Joseph…Or Those Who Won’t Learn From History

Posted on December 1, 2010 by neal

This was sent to me by a friend and I thought it worth sharing.

As a child, I attended Sunday School. I distinctly remember being taught the Old Testament story of Joseph (a son of Jacob). I was taught how Joseph had been sold by his brothers into slavery to the Egyptians back about BC 1700; how Joseph correctly interpreted two of the Pharaoh’s dreams to mean that there would be seven wonderful years of plenty, followed by seven terrible years of famine; how Pharaoh made Joseph his second-in-command; how Joseph built granaries during the seven good years to store enough surplus grain to feed the Egyptian people during the subsequent seven bad years of famine. I was taught how Joseph saved the Egyptian people; that he was a great man and an extraordinary blessing to the people of Egypt.

I was much surprised to learn that my Sunday school’s characterization of Joseph was perhaps not true. Joseph, as it turns out, was a diabolical cad who didn’t save the Egyptian people, but rather used his foreknowledge of the coming famine and understanding of economics to subject the formerly free Egyptian people to slavery.

That’s right. Long before the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, Joseph, the first Hebrew to enter Egypt, enslaved the Egyptians. So far as I know, Joseph was the world’s first economist; our first “John Maynard Keynes”.

As you’ll read from text in the Bible, Joseph was no hero—quite the opposite. More importantly, the story of Joseph shows that it was understood at least 3,700 years ago how to manipulate an economy so as to enslave an entire nation. And Joseph’s story—openly published to this day in Chapter 47 of Genesis—has been ignored and overlooked by the world, for centuries.

The impact of Joseph’s story and the world’s failure to learn from that story is stunning. Chilling.

Truly, to understand the story of Joseph is to understand “what fools we mortals be”. Joseph’s story may be the quintessential illustration of George Santana’s observation that those who won’t learn from history, are destined to repeat it. In fact, Americans (and even the world) appear to be repeating the story of Joseph, right now.

What follows are excerpts from Genesis, Chapter 47, and my observations:

“And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.” Gen 47:13-14

The seven bad years of famine had begun. But Joseph—contrary to the benign characterization I learned in Sunday school—did not provide free grain to the starving Egyptians. Instead, he sold the grain he’d accumulated during the 7 good years until he “gathered up all the money” and then brought all of it “into Pharaoh’s house”.

Thus, in the first year of the famine, Joseph had 1) cornered the grain market; 2) sold grain to starving Egyptians for such a high price that he collected all of their money (silver); 3) deposited all the money into Pharaoh’s coffers and thereby removed all the money from circulation in the Egyptian economy; and 4) exacerbated the famine by pushing the Egyptian economy into an economic recession and/or depression.

i.e., if the Egyptians still had money in circulation, they might’ve been able to buy grain at better prices from foreign countries. They might’ve been able to work their way through the famine. But without food (grain) or money (silver), their economy collapsed, and they were trapped in the famine, trapped in poverty and absolutely dependent upon and subject to Joseph.

“And when money failed in the land of Egypt . . . all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.” Gen. 47:15

Of course, the “money failed”. Why? Because Joseph had removed it from circulation and cached it away in the “Pharaoh’s house”. By doing so, Joseph caused an economic collapse/depression that, in conjunction with the famine, subjected the Egyptian people to the fear of death by starvation. In that fearful condition, the Egyptian people became more easily enslaved.

The Egyptians understood that their money had “failed” but they apparently regarded this failure some sort of natural but inexplicable anomaly. They did not suspect that their money (and thus economy) had “failed” because Joseph had collected all of their money, removed it from circulation, and deposited that money with Pharaoh.

Coincidentally, our own government removed all the gold money from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933 and all the silver money in A.D. 1968. The vast majority of the modern world’s gold (and much of the silver) has been deposited in the bank vaults of our modern “pharaohs” (governments and central banks). Thus, much like the Egyptians of 3,700 years ago, we too, have no real money in circulation.

Interesting coincidence, hmm

Read the the full story HERE

____________________________

UPDATE X9 -- Let INSANITY reign!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqcK6vUfpMk

Go Charlie!!! You nail it, my friend.

Tipping Point: 25 Signs That The Coming Financial Collapse Is

Now Closer Then Ever

From the IntelHub

“…

So will we reach a tipping point soon?  Well, the following are 25 signs that the financial collapse is rapidly getting closer….

#1 The official U.S. unemployment rate has not been beneath 9 percent since April 2009.

#2 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are currently 6.3 million vacant homes in the United States that are either for sale or for rent.

#3 It is being projected that the U.S. trade deficit with China could hit 270 billion dollars for the entire year of 2010.

#4 Back in 2000, 7.2 percent of blue collar workers were either unemployed or underemployed.  Today that figure is up to 19.5 percent.

#5 The Chinese government has accumulated approximately $2.65 trillion in total foreign exchange reserves.  They have drained this wealth from the economies of other nations (such as the United States) and instead of reinvesting all of it they are just sitting on much of it.  This is creating tremendous imbalances in the global economy.

#6 Since the year 2000, we have lost 10% of our middle class jobs.  In the year 2000 there were approximately 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

#7 The United States now employs about the same number of people in manufacturing as it did back in 1940.  Considering the fact that we had 132 million people living in this country in 1940 and that we have well over 300 million people living in this country today, that is a very sobering statistic.

#8 According to CoreLogic, U.S. housing prices have now declined for three months in a row.

#9 The average rate on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage soared 11 basis points just this past week.  As mortgage rates continue to push higher it is going to make it even more difficult for American families to afford homes.

#10 22.5 percent of all residential mortgages in the United States were in negative equity as of the end of the third quarter of 2010.

#11 The U.S. monetary base has more than doubled since the beginning of the most recent recession.

#12 U.S. Treasury yields have been rising steadily during the 4th quarter of 2010 and recently hit a six-month high.

#13 Incoming governor Jerry Brown is scrambling to find $29 billion more to cut from the California state budget.  The following quote from Brown about the desperate condition of California state finances is not going to do much to inspire confidence in California’s financial situation around the globe….

“We’ve been living in fantasy land. It is much worse than I thought. I’m shocked.”

#14 24.3 percent of the residents of El Centro, California are currently unemployed.

#15 The average home in Merced, California has declined in value by 63 percent over the past four years.

#16 Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has come up with a new way to save money.  He wants to cut 20 percent of Detroit off from essential social services such as road repairs, police patrols, functioning street lights and garbage collection.

#17 The second most dangerous city in the United States – Camden, New Jersey – is about to lay off about half its police in a desperate attempt to save money.

#18 In 2010, 55 percent of Americans between the ages of 60 and 64 were in the labor market.  Ten years ago, that number was just 47 percent.  More older Americans than ever find that they have to keep working just to survive.

#19 Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China’s share had soared to 20 percent.

#20 The U.S. government budget deficit increased to a whopping $150.4 billion last month, which represented the biggest November budget deficit on record.

#21 The U.S. government is somehow going to have to roll over existing debt and finance new debt that is equivalent to 27.8 percent of GDP in 2011.

#22 The United States had been the leading consumer of energy on the globe for about 100 years, but this past summer China took over the number one spot.

#23 According to an absolutely stunning new poll, 40 percent of all U.S. doctors plan to bail out of the profession over the next three years.

#24 As 2007 began, there were just over 1 million Americans that had been unemployed for half a year or longer.  Today, there are over 6 million Americans that have been unemployed for half a year or longer.

#25 All over the United States, local governments have begun instituting “police response fees”.  For example, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come up with a plan under which a fee of $365 would be charged if police are called to respond to an automobile accident where no injuries are involved.  If there are injuries as a result of the crash that is going to cost extra.

Read the Full Story HERE

————————

This video says it all!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxlcVAEj0sM

UPDATE X8: From Raw Story - 

Pulitzer-winner, ex-CIA analyst, FBI whistleblower among those arrested outside White House

by David Edwards

As President Barack Obama was unveiling a new report on progress of the war in Afghanistan, a lineup of high-profile dissenters joined in an act of civil disobedience that ended with about 135 demonstrators being arrested outside the White House Thursday afternoon.

The number of arrestees came by way of an attorney for one of the defendants, who spoke to Raw Story.The military’s assessment (.pdf) of the war effort found that while US troops can begin withdrawing as scheduled in July, a military presence will continue until at least 2014.

At the same time the president was speaking, dozens of protesters, organized by Veterans for Peace, lined up along the White House fence in an act of civil disobenience. Many chained or tied themselves to the fence and chanted “End, end, end the occupation. Troops out now!”

Police spent several hours arresting demonstrators, taking photos of each one before placing them into vans.

Notable participants risking arrest included Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, retired 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern, FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley, and Pulitzer-winning former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges.

Raw Story was able to confirm the arrests of Ellsberg, McGovern, Rowley and Hedges, along with Veterans for Peace members Elliott Adams, Mike Ferner, Mike Hearington and Leah Bolger.

A full list of those arrested was expected to be released later tonight.

Protesters began gathering Wednesday night at St. Stephen’s Church in Washington, DC. The rally began Thursday at 10 a.m. in Lafayette Park. Several speeches were given on the importance of civil resistance before demonstrators marched single-file to the White House.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Thursday showed a record 60 percent of Americans believe the Afghan war is not worth fighting.

This video depicting an anti-war protest outside the White House was published to YouTube on Dec. 16, 2010.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtFF9R6808

Free Speech wrote ”

This is good news for Lakin. He only got 6 months. Evidently, the Army didn’t want to make a martyr of him. They got what they wanted guilty pleas and an admission that the orders were lawful.

http://www.caaflog.com/

LTC Lakin, convicted on all counts by a general court-martial, has been sentenced.

The sentence is a dismissal, confinement for six months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The dismissal — the only form of punitive discharge authorized for an officer — is generally regarded as equivalent to a dishonorable discharge and cuts off substantially all benefits incident to military service. If approved by the convening authority, it will entitle LTC Lakin to automatic review of his case by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He can waive that review, but such waivers are relatively rare. Unless the convening authority grants a deferment of confinement, LTC Lakin will start his sentence today.

Colonel Sullivan reports that there was no reaction from LTC Lakin or from the half-dozen or so birthers remaining in the spectators’ gallery. The military judge thanked the members for their service, and excused them. The courtroom was then cleared to allow LTC Lakin privacy.

UPDATE X6:  Summary, albeit snarky, from a Col Sullivan anti-Lakin blog states the following (pay special attention to the Col’s snark in paranthesis). He appears to be a real man’s man. NOT!

This snippet posted below was published by Col. Sullivan from the CAAFlog blog(anti-Lakin). I’m very surprised Col. Sullivan was able to keep his ridicule of LTC Lakin down to a minimal in his latest writings on LTC Lakin’s court-martial. What this blog shows is that there are real concerns about Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be CiC all the way up the chain-of-command. I can’t wait until the official trial transcripts are released.

LTC Lakin

Snippet via CAAFlog; LTC Lakin continued that he became the chief of primary care at the Pentagon’s clinic in July 2009. Mr. Puckett then observed that the purpose of the hearing was for the members to determine an appropriate sentence. He then discussed the origins of LTC Lakin’s offenses.He testified that he started to have concerns about the Constitution during the primary elections, when he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. He learned that there was controversy as to the natural-born-citizen status of both major political parties’ general election candidates. He said Senator McCain provided everything he could to address his status, including a birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital’s name. He compared that with the lack of scrutiny that Senator Obama received. He had questions about the image of a certificate of live birth on the Internet and relatives stating they were present at his birth in Kenya. He said he had an open mind, but he was skeptical. One candidate went through scrutiny, but there was a lack of information as to the other.

Mr. Puckett pressed, “Why were you so interested in this?” I think he expected the answer to be because of the oath of office, but LTC Lakin instead gave an answer about reading newspapers. LTC Lakin testified that after the election, he became “extremely concerned.” He said the issue wasn’t about politics or anything else (probably an implicit denial of racism) but the Supreme Law of the Land. He stated that he “wanted a valid Commander-in-Chief.” He testified that after the election, he was no longer comfortable with being selected for deployment. He was “concerned that the Constitution wasn’t being followed.” He believes his “oath as an officer is to protect and defend the Constitution.” He believed questions about the President’s eligibility “may weaken the Constitution.” He said he doesn’t know if the President is ineligible and he doesn’t believe that anyone can know.

Neal Puckett asked, “What did you do as a soldier.” LTC Lakin said his “sought out advice” from his command and from his friends. He contacted legal assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, who said they would research the issue and get back to him, but then they would never return his calls. He talked to his commander and supervisor who said there was an issue and there were questions, but they did not know what to do to answer them. He then filed an Article 138 complaint. He was asking, “Please, someone in my command, tell me there’s not an issue about illegal orders.” He submitted the Article 138 complaint to his company commander and asked him to forward it. The reply he received back was that his Article 138 complaint was deficient, so the Army didn’t have to answer it.

LTC Lakin then wrote letters to his two Senators and Congressman. One Senator didn’t reply. One said the issue had been raised “and Twittered about and been found not to be an issue.” His Congressman forwarded his letter to Military Affairs.

He continued to “pursue what else I could do.” When he was transferred to the Pentagon, he raised the issue with his clinic’s commander. He “acknowledged concern” but had no guidance as to what to do. LTC Lakin then submitted another Article 138 complaint, this one routed through General Casey. (BTW, it would later come out that he was referred to Paul Rolf Jensen while he was at Aberdeen Providing Ground, so it seems likely that he was working with Mr. Jensen at the time he filed this Article 138 complaint.) The response he received back was that General Casey wasn’t in his chain of command, so his Article 138 complaint wouldn’t be addressed.

LTC Lakin then became aware he was “on the short-list for deployment. This greatly concerned me.” He went to Capitol Hill for face-to-face meetings with one Congressman and high-level staffers. He was told that the issue was a concern, but the media ridiculed it, so they let it go.

He was advised to go to Afghanistan and then raise the issue while he was on deployment. He considered this a “worse” option. He said it would be “extremely wrong to raise this in a combat zone.”

Mr. Puckett asked, “You thought if the Commander-in-Chief wasn’t eligible, you thought your deployment order might retroactively be considered an illegal order.” LTC Lakin agreed.

Mr. Puckett asked when LTC Lakin first sought the advice of an attorney. He answered that it was two-and-a-half years ago. He was the leader of an intermediate level school small group. There were JAGs in the group. He discussed his concerns with the JAGs and asked what he should do. One of the JAGs referred him to Paul Jensen and LTC Lakin called him. He said he “ultimately hired” Mr. Jensen.

He then testified about receiving his deployment orders. At the bottom of the orders, it said he had to bring a copy of his birth certificate. He said, “I thought, there’s an issue here.” That was followed first by laughter from the birthers in the audience, and then by applause, bring another sharp, “Members of the gallery!” from Judge Lind.

He said that in March 2010, he turned to Mr. Jensen for legal advice. When asked about Mr. Jensen’s advice, LTC Lakin replied, “There’s a Kenyan birth certificate.” He said that on Mr. Jensen’s advice, he decided not to deploy. Mr. Puckett then asked, “Who made the decision to say to your command, ‘I’ll deploy if the President shows he’s eligible?’” LTC Lakin said he did. Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose fault was it?” LTC Lakin replied, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose responsibility was it?” LTC Lakin answered, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett elicited LTC Lakin’s response that he didn’t think his orders were illegal, but he “still thought there was a constitutional issue.”

He agreed with Mr. Puckett that he used his deployment orders as a vehicle to increase the level of attention that the issue would receive. He confirmed that there were “lots of people urging you to stick to your guns.” In a reply likely to hurt him with the members, he answered: “Yes, including enlisted members and officer members.” -Full blog here. More from Col. Sullivan here and here.

UPDATE X5:  Another fabulous post from Lew Rockwell’s site. Here’s a snippet -

Apart from revealing the shocking degree to which the state has used the excuse of 9/11 to wage “war” on the American public by picking its pockets and destroying its liberties, Homeland Security Scams also provides definitive proof that the conservative movement no longer has any interest whatsoever in limited government — if it ever did. “The Heritage Beltway Right has gone over almost completely to the statist side,” Professor Bennett laments in his concluding chapter.Frankly, I’m not so sure they were not always on that side. After all, it was “Mr. Conservative,” William F. Buckley, Jr., who announced in the 1950s, shortly after the founding of National Review, that what was needed to fight the Cold War was a “totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” complete with high taxes, a giant military-industrial complex, expansive powers granted to the CIA and FBI, and the subsequent loss of freedoms that all of that would entail. With the exception of a dozen or so libertarians who influenced parts of the Reagan administration in its first two years (after which they became irrelevant), this statist vision has been the defining characteristic of “conservatism” in America for at least the past half century.

Read the full article HERE

And for those who missed watching this outstanding, factually based, documentary b/c you were too busy watching Survivor or Danicing w/the Stars, the T-Room invites you to bother yourself to watch 9/11: Press for Truth. Who knows, you might learn how you and I are being screwed day after day after day…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_m83lXu90

Ahhhh, but no operation is complete without an inner cabal hellbent on destroying American’s freedoms. Enter 41, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney -- Truthout.org did amazing work exposing The Project for a New American Century aka a NEW WORLD ORDER for those of us American’s intent on learning what the hell was going on following 9/11. This site is where I first learned about this cabal and their devilish plan. Fast forward to today where the Axis of Logic blogsite released the documentary “Project for a New American Century -- PNAC EXPOSED“ 

You see once you’ve watched Project for a New American Century -- PNAC EXPOSED  and after watching 9/11: Press for Truth, plus all of the other links in this one thread, and there will be more, you too will begin to see how America fundamentally changed on that fateful day in 1963.

Here is Part 1 of 10, however, if you wish to watch the entire film rather than in10/10 minute parts, click HERE scroll to the last video in the thread and click and watch the full film.

UPDATE X4: Fabulous, fabulous opinion from Activist Post, here’s a snippet

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Dees Illustration

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Washington D.C., known more these days as the “district of criminals” commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to protect their own private interests than protecting our country from obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as a nation, we need to remember who we are.  We are not globalists; we are Americans.  We are not “citizens” of some new world… We are not a collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed.  WE ARE AMERICANS.

UPDATE X3: Eyewitness account from inside the Courtroom -- Standing with Lt. Col. Lakin

UPDATE X2: This just in from today’s Court Martial hearing of Lt. Col. Lakin

LT Col Terry Lakin Court-Martial Live Coverage *Update*

Dear Listeners,

We are attending the LT Col Terry Lakin trial at the Fort Meade army base. We regret we are unable to file a report today because we are not allowed to bring cameras and recording devices into the courtroom. Lt Col Terry Lakin did plead guilty to a minor charge regarding disobeying a direct chain of command order. We met with Dr. Orly Taitz, famed birther attorney, Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, and a reporter from World Net Daily. A full report of today’s proceedings will be filed tomorrow promptly on the Manning Report at 3pm EST. After which, each day’s proceedings will be filed the day of the event.

(www.AtlahMediaNetwork.org)  http://atlahmedianetwork.org/?page_id=65

UPDATE X1: Dear AMERICAN brother’s and sister’s, The T-Room has been educating you for months and months about this coming financial implosion. Take a look at this from ShadowStats.com Economist John Williams -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMp22y9OUHA

The T-Room will be adding to this post information, rather than post new articles, all American’s need to know and prepare for.  Check back daily for updates from here on out. Peace  and Blessings to all AMERICAN’S

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ofFa50LzY

(Pump up the volume -- Pink Floyd, Money -- hint -- scroll rather than mouse down to listen to Pink Floyd)

Best quote of the day, the week, hell, the month -

“According to recovery.gov, the President’s website designed to track the stimulus plan, the $800 Billion plus porkulous bill passed in February 2009 is responsible for 3,348,813 jobs.  According to a new analysis conducted by the San Fransisco office of the Federal Reserve, the president’s projection is off by only 3,348,813 jobs.  That’s correct The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created exactly zero permanent jobs.

Read more at Yid w/a Lid

Tell me, how many times does one need to be lied to by our political establisment before WE say “NO MORE LIES!” Once again, as Yid points out, WE AMERICAN’S have been lied too. Please tell me you too are tired of the lies. Tell me you’ve had enough. If not, how friggin low has your threshhold for lies become? Think about it.

For me, I’m tired of learning the truth behind all of the lies I’ve been spoon fed over my lifetime.

I’m the ripe young age of 50 and during my life span I’ve been told so many countless lies I lost track long ago.

Here are just a few lies - I should fear my black brother and sister because they want to do me and my family harm. BULLSHIT! Have you watched your local news lately? I’ve been told the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn’t known by our government. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told the USS Liberty was never fired upon by an ally. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told WWII was fought to free the Jews from persecution and America was innocent. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told a magical bullet murdered President John F. Kennedy. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told Martin Luther King died by a lone assasin. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told John Jr died due to pilot error. BULLSHIT! I’ve been told Democrat’s work for the people and Republican’s work for corporate. BULLSHIT - both work for corporate NEITHER WORK FOR YOU OR ME. I’ve been told Roe v Wade is about a woman’s right to choose. BULLSHIT Genocide anyone. And now I’m being told the fool occupying the White House is legal. Double, triple, quadruple BULLSHIT!  And don’t even let me get started on all of the wars we’ve engaged in or the real truth behind 911. ALL LIES!!!

Tired of the lies…tired…so damned tired. And DAMNED TIRED OF YOU AMERICAN’S IN LEADERSHIP WHO TELL WE AMERICAN’S TO OUR FACE YOU CARE ABOUT OUR HOMELAND AND HER PEOPLE who know the truth yet keep your traps shut. You got your damned selves into the mess now do us all a favor and get yourselves out by telling ALL AMERICANS THE TRUTH! Humility is a beautiful thing. 

Sadly, we the people can’t rely on our leaders anymore because they’ve all drunk from the same greedy trough. All of them -- local, state and federal.

So it’s up to us…the intentionally “fractured” people of this great nation, to climb “TOGETHER” TO THE  mountain top and beat the criminal thugs who are intent on destroying our homeland down.

To get there, WE MUST remove the false barriers intentionally placed to separate WE AMERICAN’S from one another. Together, WE MUST trash that “Political Correct” crap that keeps all of us AMERICAN’S divided. It’s time to free OUR collective minds from the propaganda of yore. The old worn out crappola of somehow one sect of people are the chosen while the rest must serve. Get over your candyass self. No such thing. And I don’t care what MAN wrote such words thousands of years ago. Bunk! Bunk! Bunk!

The “information” war being waged upon ALL AMERICAN’S -- Christian’s, Jew’s, Muslim’s, Bhuddist’s,  to name a few, ain’t about you and me, personally, it’s about POWER OVER ALL OF US -BLACK, WHITE, PURPLE, RED OR GREEN!

Stop taking it personally and join AMERICAN’S who have had enough of being ruled by the cowardly Oz who hides behind the BLACK CURTAIN in Rome, London and DC. It’s time we get our own Toto and rip that curtain back and show the world the monsters behind it…together…in unity as responsible and PROUD AMERICAN’S. 

Never forget, liberty is why our grandmother’s and father’s, great grandma’s and pa’s and current mom’s and dad’s fled to America. We as a nation have served as a beacon of real hope and liberty to those who made it to our shores seeking safety and a comforting arm. Why on earth would we AMERICAN’S who benefitted from such sacrifice by our own family members not wish for this gift to be passed onto future victims escaping tyranny or rule by despots? Why would WE now turn away and not fight for what our own damned mothers, fathers, uncles, brothers and sisters fought for?

It’s time, all of my brothers and sisters, to come together as a nation of PROUD PEOPLE WHO LOVE LIBERTY and WANT SUCH LIBERTY FOR ALL PEOPLE…WORLDWIDE…FOREVER!!!

It’s time we show honor to the multitude of sacrifices our brave family member’s who dared to leave their homeland to come here, to America, to give you and me a life of freedom. Honor their journey, their sacrifice and their deep love for you by removing these false barriers and stand UNITED with your ENTIRE American family.

Finally, it’s time to honor all of you military Mom’s and Dad’s who are the true backbone of America. You have given so much to keep all of us living under a flag that stands for freedom, honor and valor. Thank you, The T-Room and all of her posters and lurker’s salute you and your children -- it’s time WE THE PEOPLE SHOW YOU and YOUR BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTERS AND SONS OUR GRATITUDE, OUR FIGHT AND OUR SPIRIT!

UNITED, WE AMERICAN’S, CAN AND WILL WIN THIS BATTLE FOR OUR FREEDOM!!!

Take part in the following upcoming events that have not been infiltrated by the neocons or the commies - How you, as a proud and united American, can fight for our freedom.

COUNTDOWN to Lt. Col Lakin’s Court Martial - Hearing is Dec 14 -- 15, Ft. Meade, Maryland

“This week, the American Patriot Foundation heard from a retired Navy SEAL, shocked by the stunning decision by a civilian court in which a terrorist suspect/detainee was convicted on only ONE count of 249 criminal charges: “Let me see if I understand this, Col. Lakin can get a more severe punishment that Ahmed Ghailani?”

Bother yourself to learn what Terry is doing for you and me in the fight for freedom, and go to Ft. Meade and show your support - click here for details about the hearing.

——————————-

Click here Take a Stand for Peace -

Join the largest U.S. veteran-led civil resistance to war December 16.

Rally at Lafayette Park, Washington, D.C., at 10 am

March to the White House for civil resistance

—————————

Click on Turn up the heat and join as at our Siege of DC  - 

On January 21, 2011 the FIGHT BEGINS!

 This post is dedicated to my Dad, my Uncles, OldSalt and SueK -- God bless you all