My Photo

August 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« ‘Gravity’ – from implausible via improbable to impossible | Main | Scattershots – 18oct13 (updated 19oct13) »

16 October 2013


Michael Anderson

George wrote: "...with the banks acting as profit skimming intermediaries."

Ummm, please let us know any time in history when this has not been the case. And if you have a different banking system in mind, I'd sure like to hear about it.

And regarding this "Biggest Scam in the History of Mankind," it still appears that every entity with a dollar in her pocket, from the CEO of Exxon to the local girl with the dog scraps business, is still willing to place that dollar into the global casino matrix, and many folks are doing quite well. Sure, many are not as well off, but we know what those American problems are, as discussed here in detail: automation of formerly well-paying blue collar (and now white collar) jobs, the man-cession of white males over 50 yrs. old having trouble re-entering the workforce after layoffs or contract terminations since the 2008 Great Recession, and the splitting of societal classes via lack of educational opportunities, learning accountability deficiencies, and structural poverty.

So, now what?

Michael Anderson

I just listened to Paul's interview via the podcast with Mack and it was a good one. Thanks Paul, very well done.

Can't wait to see the actual event Friday night.

Michael Anderson

BTW, speaking of things to worry about, this one is actually pretty high on my radar. I would love an international coalition to intervene, ASAP:

Paul Emery

Yes Mike, he is a good interview. Pretty fundamentalist Libertarian views on most everything. Especially interesting were his views on the Republicrats where he agrees there are virtually no differences between the parties when it comes to civil liberties. Also his opposition to the war on drugs and his statement that he would not accept federal $$$ for Marijuana eradication. Here is a link to the interview for those who are interested. I won't be able to attend on Friday (show biz stuff) but it should be an interesting mix in the audience.

George Rebane

Michael 734pm - Not sure what your point is. Banks owning a country's central bank is historically a recent happening, and such banks ("stock holders") acting as an intermediary between a country's treasury and such a bank that can print fiat money is about a century old. I hope this helps.

And if you have never run across the literature on the alternative to the Fed, you have some great reading ahead. Here are some links to read and an upcoming conference to attend -

"So, now what?" For openers stop attempting to central plan something you neither understand nor can beneficially control. The current path of spending ourselves to riots and blood in the gutters is not a solution. Roll back regulations, reform the tax code and tort laws, and give open markets a chance to create jobs for those who still want to work. (A good starting point would be to allow moms to again make cupcakes in their own kitchens for the school bake sale.)

Michael Anderson

George wrote: "...and such a bank that can print fiat money is about a century old."

I would disagree with that. The various iterations of the same thing are eons old. This is just a new construct of a central group owning 98% of the levers.

BTW, no blood in the gutters today. Stay tuned though! (-;

Ending the Fed will be long in coming, if it happens at all. These are the Too Big To Fail Boyz, and they carry guns and sit in nice restaurants afterward sharing a lovely cannelloni. You're gonna get in the middle of that?

Bill Tozer

Mr. Anderson: Enjoyed your first post immensely. Quite a litany of items that pretty well sums up where we are at and where we are going. "Learning accountability deficiencies" is a nice pleasant phrase. Kinda PC and probably over the heads of those inflicted with that particular malaise.

Ok, Obamacare is the law. We are still kicking the dead horse down the highway. No fun, don't even get a dead cat bounce now and then. So, what is next in the near term?? I would say this high deductible insurance thing over on the exchanges via the Bronze plans will catch many ill prepared. Like, how many young couples have a five thousand dollars sitting in the sock drawer to cover "emergencies"? Pay as you go, just like being uninsured.

"The deductibles on the low-cost plans are the real scandal here. The administration will surely trot out a long line of cancer patients and people with other terrible medical problems who got treatment in 2014 with coverage they weren’t able to buy in 2013, but there are going to be far more working poor and middle class people who still have to scrape together a decent premium after the subsidies, pay it faithfully, then get sick and go to the doctor, only to find out their policy doesn’t cover anything until they’ve paid a $5,000 deductible. I predict a LOT of dissatisfied lower income premium payers."

That's next in the near term.


Mr. Anderson....The Sleuth Journal is another bullshit site. The pretty color picture at the beginning of the article shows a scale listed in centimeters, a measurement of distance, and I guess is an attempt to scare to stupid into thinking that it somehow shows the spread of radiation across the Pacific Ocean.

The Sleuth Journal also has links to other bullshit like the truth of 911 and chemtrails.

Todd Juvinall

Since Detroit and many other jurisdictions have closed their hospitals and clinics across America, where are all these millions now paying through the nose under threat of fine going to be served. Also, those 30 million were getting a free ride before and now will be forced to sign up and pay money they did not have in the first place. I am wondering what the a"natural" human reaction will be to this mandate? Maybe John Roberts could tell us?


The big difference between the Obamacare "tax" and SSI and Medicare is that the latter is extracted before you ever get a paycheck. You can't miss what you never got. With Obamacare, you will be reminded every month that it's time to draw blood.

George Rebane

MichaelA 914am - Really?! If you can give an example of such an "iteration", then we could all appreciate the rigors of your approach to semantic demarcation.

Todd Juvinall

I would like to see the payroll taxes and all its iterations made the responsibility of the individual rather than the painless extraction by the unpaid employer. We would see a massive movement to the party I favor if that happened.

Paul Emery

Thanks George for the addendum. I take pride on doing a fair interview.

Paul Emery


Just imagine if war tax was payable after the fact directly from your paycheck. That would put an end to such disasters as Iraq for sure.

Taken out of your paycheck each month-Here's your war tax bill Mr Emery $75 for Iraq, $60 for Afghanistan, $85 for secret operations......

Paul Emery

So, while we're on the subject of taxes what do you think of a war tax tied specifically to any major adventure such as Iraq, Afghanistan and assorted secret ventures ? It would have to be debated and voted on by Congress and not part of the general budget. Of course it would leave breathing room for immediate response but would require separate funding measures for each major involvement. It is estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost around $3 Trillion that is now part of our deficit tp be paid off by futere generations.

George Rebane

PaulE 101pm - OK, fair enough to get that kind of itemization on our tax bill. But why stop there? There are federal expenditures that many people believe damage our country much more than foreign military escapades, some which we actually must execute as called for in the Constitution. Let's see the whole bill itemized for each person who pays taxes (after all, that's why God invented computers). Also, I'd like to have the nearly half that don't pay any federal taxes get a an 'information only' invoice outlining their itemized shares that have been picked up by the country's taxpayers. Let's inform everyone about their contribution to federal and state expenditures.

Paul Emery

What's different George in my view is that most tax expenditures are accountable as part of the budget passed by Congress and signed by the President. Wars aren't. The War in Iraq for example was added on and never accounted for in the budget making it different. Some kind of emergency spending of indefinite amount to be paid by someone sometime. Needless wars would end if people were aware of the costs upfront and there was a universal draft with no exceptions for the wealthy and connected. There should be a secondary draft for those in their 50's to fill administrative positions. Believe me, that would end it.

George Rebane

PaulE 307pm - I'm not disagreeing with you on the nature of wars and their open ended funding - wars have never been easy to plan, let alone budget. I am also in favor of universal draft, including the service of the over 50 (recall my letter to Rumsfeld after 9/11 offering a volunteer corps of older veterans).

But I am dead serious about also breaking out the budgeted expenditures, no one knows what they really are, save the very broad strokes which are doubly uninformative since they raise more questions than they answer. And I will guarantee you that doing so will raise more eyebrows than detailing war expenditures.

Walt B

With any luck the old RNC will be shown the door.
With all this "clean" BS on the "CR", Pork spending ( payoffs)
always is the game changer. And a dam of all things? And for a REPUB.??
"O" has been great at divide and conquer, and the Repubs fall for it every time.
They just didn't kick the can, they set it on a football tee, and got a good running start.

There’s no actual debt ceiling right now.

The fiscal deal passed by Congress on Wednesday evening to re-open the government and get around the $16.4 trillion limit on borrowing doesn’t actually increase the debt limit. It just temporarily suspends enforcement of it.

That means Americans have no idea how much debt their government is going to rack up between now and Feb. 7, when the limits are supposed to go back into place and will have to be razed.

I could use a new truck. I think I will give a few elected Reps. a call
and have that small pittance added to the bill. Who would notice?

Bill Tozer

Itemized tax bill? Surely you jest. Congress made it a law and it is now illegal for a cell phone provider to breakdown all the little taxes and fees on your cell phone bill. They must lump it all together by law. Passed by the Democrat House and Senate when Queen Nancy had that big ole gavel.

You must be smoking something stronger than Elephant Tranquilizer mixed with LSD-25 and Draino to believe you would ever see an itemized tax bill in this lifetime. Like this much goes for keeping the golf course at Andrews AFB open, this much goes for the Beauru of Dams that has not built a dam in 60 years, this much goes for a study finding out how many beers does it take a college coed to drop her drawers, this much goes for Muslims to feel good about themselvers, this one goes for how much we give non citizens to start a business, and this amount is for the 66 year old Cuban lady who will get SS tomorrow after not stepping on US soil until yesterday (more than my Mom ever got).

The whole Great Northern Woods would have to be leveled of trees just to print up all the itemized things our taxes go for. This much goes for saving a tree..

George Rebane

BillT 807pm - Mr Tozer, I was thinking of a bit higher on the granularity level, but your point is well made. I must have lost my grip and do apologize for the slip. Thanks for catching the foolish error.

Bill Tozer

No worries good doctor. Continue to look at the big picture and I will continue to wallow in the mire. :)

Walt B

Here is a good laugh for this morning. Dear old Arnold has publicly
called for changing the rule about "natural born citizens only"
can run for Prez. I guess he wants the chance to finish off whatever
"O" happens to leave behind. ( Yaa,,,he wants a shot at the W.H. too)
I guess he feels that since Brown got stupidly re elected , he's a shoe in.

Michael Anderson

MikeL 557am 10-17 -- Thanks Mike. My mistake not vetting that site, I should have looked deeper into that group. That being said, the dangers at Fukushima are real, as described here by a more main-stream media source.

BTW Mike, you'll notice the 9/11 Truthers, Chemtrail followers and Agenda21-ers are all bundled together at Sleuth Journal (-:

Michael Anderson

GeorgeR 829am 10-17
George, fiat currencies have been around for at least half an eon (maybe I was exaggerating when I wrote "eons ;-). So I suppose your semantic object is in regards to the details of the construction of the Fed. I see the Fed as the evolutionary result of banking dynasties such as Berenberg–Gossler–Seyler, Fugger, Welser, and the more recent ones from the past 300 years or so. A "single family of bankers" system evolved to a bunch of banks acting as stockholders; same unaccountability, wrecklessness, and internally institutionalized hubris.

George Rebane

MichaelA 422pm - Unsupported fiat currencies have eventually ALL led to the downfall of the sovereign states that began their issue and devaluation. That process is accelerated with introduction of central banks which remove responsibility one more layer from the users of the currency. What is worse, is that central bankers appear to act with the wink-wink and imprimatur of the state. That collusion is fatal.

Better to go back to 'industry standard' money that consists of certificates of drawing rights to precious metals or other real assets that back the money. Such certificates should be issued by individual banks. The market would determine very quickly if any issuing banks were committing fraud and end the life of the bank in a criminal proceeding. In short, don't let government have the monopoly power to issue currency that masquerades as money, they will do what all governments have done with that power - finance needless wars and buy votes.

Michael Anderson

"semantic object," I meant "semantic objection"

Michael Anderson

GeorgeR 933pm - I think we are dancing around different barns. My only disagreement with you was when you appeared to have claimed that we have not seen this before and that the Fed is something new.

I agree with your two main premises that 1) fiat currencies always fail eventually, and 2) "that collusion [you cite] is [historically] fatal."

Where I think we disagree is that central banks are inherently evil and will never work, and that our money system must be based upon elements that were created when stars were born.

But no matter, now that we're dancing around the same barn, let's talk about something else for a few minutes.

I was at the CSPOA presentation this evening at the Vet's Hall with Richard Mack and I enjoyed the event quite a bit. Many thanks to NCRWF for hosting it. I did not have actual bells on my toes, but they were there in spirit.

Here are a few of my take-aways:
1. Mack was very clear that his message is about working within the system, as long as possible (at least until things go catawampus).
2. His version of libertarian politics includes getting rid of the War on Drugs, supporting non-pasteurized milk, as well as celebrating Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement from the 50s and 60s. Noticeably absent was his celebration of DOMA being struck down recently, but us progressive libertarians will take what we can get.
3. I really appreciated his drilling down into some of the guts of the Brady Bill Supreme Court decision, and the Scalia cites were particularly poignant.
4. He needs a newer computer (Windows XP will no longer be updated by Microsoft after April 2014), a new version of Powerpoint, and an IT person to uncheck the screensaver button that kept showing us how to connect his serial port. [Sorry, geek-out moment for those not in the biz.]
5. He mentioned a couple of times that public speaking was not his forte, and I could tell that what he is trying to do is a work in progress, but I can certainly appreciate his situation from my own personal speaking stints and I thought that overall he did pretty well. He does his best work when he lets his passion take the mic.
6. Mack spent a lot of time on the 2nd Amendment, at the expense of the other 10 amendments, in his setup. I was disappointed that he did not balance his fairly extreme opposition to gun control, especially registration requirements, with a proviso for people who are mentally disturbed. I was less than a block away in 2001 when Scott Thorpe went on his second shooting rampage at the Lyon's Restaurant (now Lumberjack's) and spent hours in a lockdown situation, with the Nevada County Sheriff's Department SWAT team running around outside looking like chickens with their heads cut off. The Wilcox family hasn't gotten much traction in trying to fix this huge problem. All of the mass shootings in America are done mostly by males who are mentally compromised in some way. Richard Mack would serve us all hugely with answers regarding how to prevent weapons getting into the hands of people who are somehow mentally incapacitated, including temporarily. Not an easy task, I understand that. But it would certainly make more logical his huge admiration for federal District Court Chief Judge John Roll, the judge who first ruled on his Brady Bill challenge, and who was killed by a mentally ill person, Jared Loughner, in the same shooting that killed five other people and almost killed U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords from Tucson.

As I said, I think overall his message was sound, and it comes from a strong libertarian background which has a lot of traction in Nevada County from both liberals and conservatives who have chosen to live here so that gov't is a lessor factor in their daily lives.

My biggest beef is that he only addressed Amendment 1 through 10, leaving out a really critical one, the 14th Amendment. This is probably my biggest problem with the Tea Party--they choose to selectively review the US Constitution and adamantly oppose the idea that it is supposed to be a living, breathing document. But the framers did allow two ways to revise it: Constitutional Amendments and a Constitutional Convention.

The 14th Amendment is one of the biggies after the original 10, and I will quote below the beginning of a great column by Hendrick Hertzberg from the New Yorker magazine from this coming Monday, October 21, 2013:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
—Amendment XIV, Section 4.
By the time that long-obscure, lately apposite sentence became part of the Constitution, on July 9, 1868, the insurrection that occasioned it had been thoroughly, and bloodily, suppressed. Throughout the Civil War and afterward, Republicans in Congress had enacted some of the most forward-looking legislation in American history: a national currency, the Homestead Act, a transcontinental railroad, support for higher education, the definitive abolition of slavery—all thanks to the extended absence of delegations from the self-styled Confederate states. Now that era was about to end.
The party of Lincoln, grand but not yet old, feared the mischief that Southern senators and representatives might get up to when their states were readmitted to the Union. The Republicans’ foremost worry was that Congress might somehow be induced to cut funds for Union pensioners or pay off lenders who had gambled on a Confederate victory. But the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers went further. Benjamin Wade, the president pro tem of the Senate, explained that the national debt would be safer once it was 'withdrawn from the power of Congress to repudiate it.' He and his colleagues didn’t say just that the debt could not be put off, or left unpaid. They said that it couldn’t even be questioned.
The new insurrection is different from the old one, and not only because this time it’s the Republicans who are the insurrectionaries. The old insurrectionaries wanted to destroy the government; the new ones wish merely to decimate it. The old ones’ weapons of choice were muskets and bayonets; the new ones confine themselves to mendacity, demagoguery, and obstructionism. The old ones were exclusively white and Southern; the new ones, while overwhelmingly white, are more widely distributed. The old ones no longer wished to be citizens of the United States; the new ones, some of them, profess to wonder if the President is a citizen at all."
(Read the rest at

Sound familiar?

Sorry guys, you don't get to selectively choose which parts of the US Constitution you admire, and then implement at the local level. It just doesn't work that way. Richard Mack talked a lot about the "rule of law" tonight. I suggest he get a much tighter grip on what that actually means.

Michael Anderson

George Rebane

MichaelA 1245am - Thanks for that lengthy and considered comment. I will move a part of it to my post on Sheriff Mack's talk last night.

Re central banks and money. Yes, central banks owned by a secretive cabal of private banks is inherently evil and more so when it colludes with the guns of government - e.g. using those to prevent even an audit of its accounts. Such factors are invisible to big government aficionados.

I used "elements that were created when stars were born" as examples of assets of broadly ascribed value that cannot be arbitrarily manufactured by a corrupt government (or any other institution). You are free to substitute any other asset with similar properties for such 'elements' to substantiate my point.


Sorry, Mike, the 2nd gets a lot of air time because it's the one folks like you tried to ignore for a couple of centuries. It's catch up time.

There are no registration requirements for printing presses, and Dems do their best to water down any reasonable registration requirements for voting. Like showing ID. But to avoid criminal charges it appears that before a Boy Scout camp firing range master hands a bolt action single shot 22 to a youngster in California, the kid will have to take an approved firearms safety class because in a short time it will be illegal to lend someone a rifle if they don't have one.

What a state!

Contrary to your insinuations, Mike, Congress did nothing to repudiate the debt of the Federal government; you're confusing Democratic rhetoric with reality. They voted multiple times to fund going further into hock in order to pay all the bills, it's just that Reid and Obama would have rather defaulted than go along with the House. What the GOP did was try to defund Obamacare, and defunding is a time honored way to euthanize bad legislation. It was just before its time.


Sorry guys, you don't get to selectively choose which parts of the US Constitution you admire, and then implement at the local level. It just doesn't work that way. Richard Mack talked a lot about the "rule of law" tonight. I suggest he get a much tighter grip on what that actually means.

Sorry guys, you don't get to selectively choose which parts of the US Constitution you admire, and then implement at the local level.

It's done all the time. You yourself called for suspension of the rules relating to those who overstay their visa periods just last week.

It just doesn't work that way.

Again...yes it does...for those who are politically favored the rules are always selectively interpreted.

Really Michael you're not even trying to be consistent any more. I suggest you get a much tighter grip on what it actually means.

Hendrick Hertzberg.....the only thing missing is a short skirt and pom poms to accompany his reliable cheerleading (and of course, lets not leave out the other members of squad...."Tingles" Matthews, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen et. al. all enthusiastic and reliable fellators of an expansionist state with all that comes with it!) for TEAM BIG STATE. I hope he lives long enough to enjoy the Menckenesque blow back and that he gets his "good and hard".

Enjoy finally got your "pony"

Contributors note: I'm punching out.....this will be my last post as I'm tired of having the same argument over and over. I concede your point that the right, as currently constituted, is irrelevant. I'll check in in a few years (assuming George wants to keep the circus up and running) to either offer an apology and congratulations on the fantastic job the left is doing running the show or wallow in delicious schadenfreude!

Later Homies!

Barry Pruett

Michael: I concur in most of your assessement except for your characterization of the current state of affairs with the 14th Amendment. I was not aware that failing to raise the debt limit for a period would cause us to default on any debt. That is a rhetorical argument not based in fact. Interest on debts would be paid and entitlements would have been paid. It is true that all disctetionary spending would likely have stopped, but that does not constitutue a default on debt pursuant to the 14th amendment. Nobody (Republicans or Democrats) ever said or proposed a bill not to pay our lawful fact the argument was "if we are going to extend the lawful debt to beyond $17 trillion, we need to also address getting the lwaful debt drivers under control." An entirely reasonable suggestion. Unfortuantely, the extremist radicals in Washington DC decided to continue heaping never-ending deficits and mind-numbing debt on our children and grandchildren by enacting a classic DC punt.

Okay, off the soapbox. I missed you last night at the Mack event. I was actually looking for you, as I enjoy our conversations. I think that it is about time to have a Mineshaft meeting!

Michael Anderson

Wow Greg, that's a whole lotta wrong in just a couple paragraphs. Where to begin, where to begin...

I know, I'll start out by asking how much you enjoyed the Mack presentation last night. You were there weren't you?

Secondly, I wasn't "insinuating" anything. I am flat-out stating that trying to de-fund legislation that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, unable to muster an overturning vote to even get to a guaranteed veto, and then upheld by the Supreme Court, is extraconstitutional. You can keep attempting to rewrite history, Greg, but your effort is blatantly transparent.

Third, it's news to me that I've been trying to ignore the 2nd Amendment "for a couple of centuries." I know I'm long in the tooth, but not that long. Plus, you have no clue about my stance on the 2nd. And you didn't even attempt to address my main point regarding Mack's presentation, which is that he doesn't support any type of background check whatsoever, even if it means crazy people can have them. Is that your position as well?

Lastly, your "insinuation" that Reid and Obama would rather have defaulted is incorrect. In reality what happened is that they finally found the proper fumigant against bullies, which I subscribe to wholeheartedly and have even come to use in this blog.

I love the smell of bullies with bloody noses in the morning! (queue "Ride of the Valkyries")

Remember, Charlie don't surf, buddy.


"Secondly, I wasn't "insinuating" anything. I am flat-out stating that trying to de-fund legislation that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, unable to muster an overturning vote to even get to a guaranteed veto, and then upheld by the Supreme Court, is extraconstitutional."

Thanks to Michael for reformulating his insinuation to a clear statement of Pure bullshit.

Congress has every right to not fund any particular program. Period.

Todd Juvinall

fish, don't go, you and Tozer are the relief we need from the loudmouth libs here. And you do it with humor. I too get frustrated that the libs are stuck on stupid and are nasty and mean but we have to at least meet them and debunk them whenever we can. MichaelA and the rest are unreachable with logic and facts and we get that. But for the uninformed we must place the truth in front of them.

So please stay!

Michael Anderson

"Congress has every right to not fund any particular program. Period."

That's not what we're arguing. What we're arguing is whether they have the "right" to tie that to the debt ceiling and CRs.

I suppose they have the "right" to do whatever they damn well please. But just be aware that the Dems don't care anymore. Civil War II is right on schedule, and scorched earth works both ways. Your move.


"I suppose they have the "right" to do whatever they damn well please."

What you were arguing was that tying a defunding to a debt ceiling *increase* was tantamount to an unconstitutional repudiation of debt, which was yet another lunacy on your part.

Not increasing debt is not a repudiation of existing debt. Period. Trying to force the president to either sign a bill he doesn't like, or make do with the 8 billion a day that the taxpeople collect without allowing him to borrow an extra 2 billion a day, is perfectly constitutional. Lousy tactics, whether it was a strategic loss or not is for time to decide.

George Rebane

fish 832am - I too join my voice in asking you to reconsider your announced departure from these pages. Perhaps readjusting the objective for your excellent comments might help. Long before starting RR it was clear to me - whether through advice or perception, I don't recall - that the debates between collectivists and classical liberals were not to be joined for the ends of conversion, but for informing third parties who observe such debates (think Buckley's Firing Line).

This humble little forum is perused monthly by thousands of unique visitors, and it is safe to assume that not all of them are yet firm in their socio-political beliefs, let alone comfortable under the mantles of sclerotic ideologues. Please consider those interested third parties to be your audience as you pit your ideas against their opposites. It is your performance to the gallery that counts - break a leg!

Todd Juvinall

The dems don't care? Well, that has been the case all of my life. Look at the states of California and New York. Down the crapper. Then the national dems decided it worked so easily in the those states they took the theft of our money and our Constitutional Rights down the same path. Even John Roberts sold out on the "tax" provision of the document. The arguments are never how do we not do something because the Constitution does not allow it, but how do we circumvent it. The John Roberts "created from whole cloth" decision is not in the document and other than Roe V Wade where the SCOTUS created a new "right" not enumerated in the document have we seen such hubris.

The House originates the money under Article One and yet somehow, over the years a new paradigm was created in that the Prez ans Senate get to o the same thing. But when members of the Congress said wait a minute, that is wrong, they became pariahs in the chambers and the press while doing their duty.

So, the basic tenets of the simple document of individual and state's rights and enumerated powers has become unrecognizable and tyrannical (Commerce Clause abuse mostly). I am still trying to figure out how the Federal Government has "navigable waters" jurisdiction over my 24 inch wide drainage ditch wholly within the state of California. That little fact is what we mean when we say leave us alone. I see the same thing with the medical marijuana issues.

Looks like Sheriff Mack was able to find some common ground for State's Rights people and MJ growers. PaulE should support the Sheriff, ya thinlk?

Russ Steele


I second George's comment, we are all writing for the lurkers and they are in the 100s, if not 1000s per month, that read multiple pages. On my climate change blog, I average over 10,000 visitor a month, with 40 counties represented in just the last 7 days. Yet, I only average about 17 comments a month. There is a lot of reading going on, but few take the time to comment. I will bet the same is true on RR as feel.

Please reconsider your departure, I enjoy reading your insight and I am sure that others do as well. One regular reader of Rumination shared her secret with me, she just comes for the comments. That includes yours!


Fish, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of "please don't go". I have been a daily reader of RR for several years, and have never commented until now. You have a uniquely clear and concise style that is refreshingly stimulating. You may never get any agreement from the bloggers who see the world through a different lens than many of us, but I assure you that there are many readers of this blog who do see the world similarly to you, and enjoy reading your very direct and insightful comments.

Wayne Hullett

I watched all four episodes of Hidden Secrets of Money and here are some of the thoughts occurred to me:

1. The purpose of the website is to sell you gold. Sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt is a good way to do that. The content of the video must be taken keeping that in mind. I'm not saying that he is not right -- I am saying one must understand the larger picture and decide whether what he is saying explains what we are seeing.

2. I would have thought that the price of gold would have increased in pace with the increase in money supply created in just the past few years, yet it has fallen. There must be something else going on that is not discussed or explained in the videos.

3. If he really believes that gold is going to go up so much in price, why is he trying to sell you gold today? Shouldn't he be trying to buy your gold?

4. Owning almost any real asset is a protection against inflation. During the hyperinflation in Germany in the last century in which prices were increasing hourly, people were even buying things like gravestones because they held their
value better than the currency. I would think that assets such as real estate would also hold its value. If you look at 10 year charts of gold ETFs and RE ETFs, REITs have done much better. Plus real estate produces income, and you don't have to find a safe place to store it.

5. If banks are the recipients of all the ill-gotten largesse as he claims, and the banks also own the Fed, then one should invest in the stocks of the major banks. However, a brief look at the 10 yr performance of the stocks of these
banks reveals that they were lousy investments compared with other sectors. Where is all the money going? To bonuses?

I think his sales pitch falls short of fully explaining what is happening.

George Rebane

WayneH 436pm - Excellent points Dr Hullett. The only thing one can postulate is that selling gold on commission is much more profitable, at least during the interval before the currencies get destroyed, especially when the rest of the world believes all is well and we will soon return to the heady days of the 1990s.

The only thing I would add to the mix is that ALL central banks (and their linked treasuries) are quietly accumulating gold as if in preparation for ...?

Bill Tozer

Mr. Fish. Come on man, don't give the maggot puke bucket scrotes free rent in your head. I read your posts and say "My, this man has a large cranium filled with common sense." A rare quality, a desert bloom, an oasis on a hostile planet.

Is it because Mr. Anderson rejected you as his new BFF? Just wait it out. He will dump me in short time and search out a new Best Friend Forever I can assure you.

Enjoy your break and see ya on the flip side. Come on back and get some free rent in their heads. Love, Bill.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad