by Bob Chapman

As we look back and this year comes to an end we find two plus years of failure. Even government admits to 1-1/2 years of negative growth – a sorry record after having poured trillions of dollars into the economy. The recent 3rd quarter results supposedly broke that record. If it did it was the result of government stimulus and Fed monetization. If you look back further you will find a stock market that rallied 54% just to reflect the highs of 1999. House prices have decline to 1990s levels as well. Both markets, which were bubbles, next year will fall again. Americans opened their markets to products of Communist China’s slave labor and China became the world’s biggest exporter. Via free trade, globalization, offshoring and outsourcing, transnational conglomerates have stolen America’s destiny and handed it to China. This is what corporatist fascism is all about.

The dollar will soon end its mini-rally and the USDX will test 71.18 in the first quarter as the euro tests $1.62. Interest rates will stay at zero for at least two years, and mega monetization will continue. As you have just seen the Treasury wants TARP funds for Treasury debt and the administration wants the TARP funds to further stimulate the economy. Either way it is very inflationary.

We are told the credit crisis is over and that recovery is underway. We do not believe that. It is projected that as many as 300 more companies will default on debt in 2011. A default rate of 12 to 14 percent. That is up from 1% in 2007 and a long-term average of 4.5%. These are not just small firms, but companies with more than $100 million in assets as well. That doesn’t sound like recovery to us. What is very significant is that the 300-figure is based on recovery. Only 116 companies defaulted between 2004 and 2007. One of the groups hit hard will be commercial real estate. The figures are already bad, but companies and lenders have been buying time by using two sets of books, marking to model and refinancing. All that doesn’t change the big picture and that is with a recovery the situation will be bad, without recovery it will be dreadful.

Corporate America has lots of problems, but the federal government has many more. It has to finance more than $1 trillion a year in borrowings. Interest rates are the lowest ever, but rates will begin to climb next year; 5% real interest rates would add some $600 billion to the debt service. That is more than the combined costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, energy, education and Homeland Security.

The Fed has been backstopping short-term interest rates and holding down long-term rates. They say they will end their $300 billion program to buy up Treasury bonds and will stop buying mortgage securities by the end of next March.

The administration believes it will have to borrow $3.5 trillion over the next three years, plus rolling over short-term debt, or another $1.6 trillion. That is a total of $5.1 trillion. Knowing politicians you can increase that number by at least 50%. The wages of sin have caught up with the government as it attempts to replace short-term bills with 5, 7, 10 and 30-year paper. We do not believe the debt is payable and the consequences are not going to be pretty. All the velocity of monetary circulation is not going to change the final outcome.

At the same time the Fed and Wall Street are trying to cover-up, as they did 2-1/2 years ago what became a credit crisis. Last time they ramped up the stock market and they are attempting to do the same thing again. It is a masking of two underlying problems. They are doing what they did before, pushing up the value of shares, of companies that are on the edge of serious problems. In this process they have virtually nationalized banks and given them the funds to re-leverage in the market and take it again to today’s heights. The market has again become divorced from economic reality. They are again about to find out printing money and taxing is not going to solve the problem. On the way to the printing press and along the path of monetization the government has forgotten that they are in serious financial conditions and in the coming year will not be able to fund their deficit. The revenues are not to be had and foreigners are more and more reluctant to shoulder America’s debt. That means another credit crisis and further monetization of debt. Very simply, the US government is bankrupt. They can either default or lay the burden on future generations. The immediate answer is for government to cut spending on such trivialities, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Allow the citizens to live in penury and poverty. These are the people who helped build America into what it is and they are to be cast aside as the Fed rescues its owners, the bankers, who deliberately caused the problem in the first place.

The deficit for fiscal 2010 should be close to $2 trillion, up from $1.4 trillion in 2009. The projection for the next ten years is at least $10 trillion. That means an increase of 150% to be serviced by 60% increase in tax revenue in a world where current receipts are off 30%. Even in better times recently tax revenues only increased by 12% during the biggest real estate and stock booms ever. We are about to find out that the muddle through theory does not work. Just for good measure we will add that unfunded liabilities increased by $9 trillion last year alone. That is ten years of deficits in just one year. Who in their right mine is going to fund and support such profligacy?

Then there is the status of the FDIC. It is $8.2 billion in debt and has already pulled $80 billion additional funds secretly from the Treasury. No one ever told us that FDIC funds were commingled in the general fund, just as Social Security and Medicare have been since their inception. There now is no money set aside for bank failures. The Fed in secret meetings has said the FDIC does not have 552 problem banks, but 2,035 in eminent danger. The cost to bail out these banks would be close to $1 trillion. That would be impossible to fulfill and so we state again, the FDIC will be history by the end of 2010. That will leave $5.120 trillion of deposits and FDIC-guaranteed debt uninsured. The FDIC funds, whatever their number, have been spent on the military, bailouts, other government programs and to pay interest. All three entities have been looted. All that is left is unpayable IOUs. Overall unfunded obligations are: Social Security $15.1 trillion. Medicare $88.9 trillion or a total of $104 trillion. If you add in short-term debt of $114.7 trillion, are you getting the message?

Just to give you an idea of how much debt has been created, the average G-20 budget deficits are 10.2% of GDP, when 3% is normal. Greece, which is on the edge of bankruptcy, will be 12.5% in 2010. Yet, the US is already at 13.5%. Close behind are the UK and Japan at 11.6% and 10.3%. The erosion of confidence and trust will soon manifest itself as lenders stop lending to these nations. This has already happened to the US with the Fed monetizing more than half of Treasury issuance. This is proof the dollar will crash and be devalued, as debt goes into default. Foreign nations are understandably concerned, as the dollar now only makes up 37% of new foreign reserve holdings. That is about a 50% reduction in holdings. As we reported before it is no wonder oil producers have held secret meetings to dump the petro dollar. Wall Street, Washington and central banks worldwide refuse to heed the lessons of the centuries and so have been damned to oblivion.

In more slight of hand the BLS has let us know that their birth/death model has overestimated the unemployment by some 824,000. These errors will be included in their statistics in February, and may be revised. The private sector number is 855,000. Some would like to call the error incompetence, we call it strategic planning by government to mislead the American people. For months the number of employed had been expanding via these phantom figures when they should have been contracting. We cannot access their data so the incorrect figure could be even higher.

What government has been doing is guessing for the past six years how many jobs had been created or lost by small businesses. In reality it was a totally unsound method of creating jobs that didn’t exist.

This miscounting by other methods also distorts the CPI, PPI retail sales, durable goods and, of course, GDP. That means you cannot believe a thing the government says. We have contended this for more than ten years. As an example, how can employment in small businesses be growing when more than 43,000 went under last year? Even if the figures come in late there obviously is never any adjustment. The difference in this case is jobs lost were not 7.2 million, but 8 million. In the second quarter some 16,000 businesses failed, up from about 14,000 quarter-to-quarter, the highest in 16 years. In addition the BLS only looks at unemployment insurance tax records once a year – how convenient. The birth/death model is nothing more than a ruse to present unemployment in a better light. This has been done for the past six years not just over the past two years. Our research shows a bogus set of additions yoy of about 1.7 million.

The fund-less FDIC reports US banks may be making money gambling with leverage using TARP funds, but bank loans fell by $210.4 billion, or 2.8% in the third quarter, the biggest drop since the FDIC started keeping records in 1984. Those same banks booked profits of $2.8 billion reversing a $4.3 billion third quarter loss. Loans to businesses fell 6.5% and those to real estate 8.1%.

Small business cannot borrow and they created 64% of new jobs in the past 15 years says the SBA. We see that figure at 75%.

Non-current loans rose 10% to 5% of all loans to $366.6 billion, the highest rate on record. In the 3rd quarter banks charged off $51 billion in bad loans, the 11th straight quarterly increase, up more than 80% yoy. 66-2/3% of banks set aside $62.5 billion in loss reserves, 22% higher yoy.

124 banks have failed thus far this year, up from 25 in 2008 and we could see more than 2,000 fail in 2010 and 2011.

The FDIC says it has set aside $38.9 billion for losses giving it total reserves of $30.7 billion. They say they have $23.3 billion in cash. They expect to collect another $45 billion by the end of the year when banks are forced to pay $45 billion, or three years of deposit insurance in advance. That would give them $98.3 billion to cover losses. If they really have those funds, which we doubt, they will need them for 2010’s failure onslaught.

It looks like the stock market is finally ready to rollover. It is in a well-defined head and shoulders pattern that began in September. This is what happens when trillions are given to the financial sector and a pittance to the public. This is a control planner’s formula for disaster. The present dollar rally could end at 78 or 80 and then the test of 71.18. Our government rigged this rally using the currency swaps they created out of thin air in March.

If banks do not increase lending by 20% in 2010, a second credit crisis will beset markets. Stocks are way over valued having baked in a strong recovery with the help of TARP funds. This market reminds us of the alcoholic who has to have a drink upon rising and says he is not an alcoholic. All Wall Street knows is profits and they could care less about unemployment. The debasement of our currency means nothing. Speculation wages again with no thought of lower financial profits in the first quarter and a distinct chance of a second credit crisis. Ignored is the government’s manipulative presence in the market, or market fundamentals. Today’s speculation reflects the lack of trust, confidence and lack of fiscal and monetary discipline. The theme is we had better make it while we can, because there may be no tomorrow. As a result the probability of a steep market correction is strong. What we are involved in economically and financially is not a common correction, it is a correction in a bear market and few, even professionals, see this. This happened in the early 1930s and by the end of 1940 we still had not exited depression. We had to arrange a war to extricate ourselves.

Read the rest at this link.

by Jeff Poor

Scary times ahead? Perhaps, if you take credence in what Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says.

Paul, who had a strong grassroots following during the 2008 presidential election, explained on Glenn Beck’s Sept. 30 radio program that perilous times lie ahead due to the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. Host Glenn Beck asked how an Israeli strike against Iran might trigger problems with the American financial system

“What happens when Israel strikes Iran or Iran has the earth rays and we know that they now have a nuclear weapon, what happens to our financial system at that point?” Beck asked.

The libertarian Paul maintained China would become the world’s financial heavyweight and they were already making preparations to be the world’s top dog.

“I think the Chinese take over,” Paul said. “If there’s a real panic and oil shoots up to a couple of hundred bucks, the Chinese will dump their dollars. Chinese are maneuvering for this. The more we threaten Iran, the stronger the Chinese influence gets because they’re using the dollars that they have earned from us and saved, they have a trillion, and they are starting to buy up assets in Iran and build plants and get involved in their energy. So the whole thing is backfiring on us. We’re getting ready to put tougher sanctions on the Iranians and that will make things that much worse. It won’t help the dissidents in Iran. It’s going to cost us a lot of money, and there will be a bombing and that will be a big, big event. I think it will crash the dollar is what I think it would do.”

And what does the country look like after the dollar crashes?  Not good the Texascongressman said.

“We think it was bad with the financial crisis,” Paul said. “When you have a dollar crisis, the whole thing quits functioning. The checks bounce and literally the federal government’s checks bounce if you have – if inflation goes up.”

But the situation deteriorates even more Paul – with states leaving the union.

“I think we’re going to have a de facto 10th Amendment, secession,” Paul said “People are just going to ignore the federal government because they won’t – and there’s, you know, a total loss of credibility.”

Beck alluded to media charges and warnings from others that there would be violence and contended the right is being set up to take the fall for it.

“Congressman Paul, the media and even [Rep.] Patrick Kennedy said this, we heard this from two people, Muammar Gaddafi and I believe the other one was Ahmadinejad that both spoke last week and they – we’re hearing it all the time that there’s going to be violence here in America, that people are targeting,” Beck said. “Basically everyone is going to blame this on the right, any kind of violence.”

There would be violence, but not before a dollar crisis happens as some Democratic politicians and media personalities have warned, but afterward Paul said.

“I think that there will be violence,” he explained. “I hope we don’t have to go through, you know, a very violent period of time, but that’s what happens too often when the government runs out of money and runs out of wealth, the people argue over, you know, a shrinking pie and, of course, the people who have to produce are sick and tired of producing.”

by Ian Mathias

Since it worked so well the first time around, Wall Street has spawned a new age of securitization – instead of mortgages, this time it’s life insurance policies. Before we spit on this one, here’s how it works:

• A senior with a high-premium life insurance policy, for one reason or another, chooses to cash out.
• Instead of taking a “cash surrender” directly from the insurance company, the old fella sells his policy to a “life settlement company.”
• That company pays him a larger amount than the “cash surrender” would pay, but not nearly the totality of the policy’s value.
• The company keeps paying the premiums. When he kicks the bucket, the company collects the insurance policy.

That’s where the story would normally be over. But now, just like pools of subprime, Alt-A and prime mortgages, investment bankers are crafting securitized pools of these insurance polices. Basically, they pool together a bunch of beneficiaries that will likely die around the same time, buy up their policies from life settlement companies, package them into securities and sell them to investors around the world.

Heh. Really, could the idea of “Wall Street” be any more evil right now? Not only are they rehashing the same schemes that triggered the credit crisis in the first place, but think about it… they will make more money the sooner you die! If policyholders die sooner than expected, there will be no monthly premiums left to pay and the investors get a bigger share of the insurance payout. (And if people like our tech analyst Patrick Cox are right, a sudden surge in life expectancies could blow up these new funds… another crisis! Hooray!)

It’s no wonder Michael Moore has set his sights on lower Manhattan… we couldn’t think of an easier target. They deserve each other.

by Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin, Esq.

Let’s be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue of “Who Is Sovereign in the United States.” For our Founders, they fought, bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution) and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves; and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today in America, the question once again comes down to “Who is Sovereign in the United States?”

Today, there are 3 basic options for “Who is Sovereign in the United States”: (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe that the answer to this critical question is the Federal government–especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” and that no state law or action to the contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as their “irrefutable” proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with “we the people.” However, the question must be more narrowly defined.

That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated, because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary, if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the “Centralists” of our day.

Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.

Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION: in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it acknowledges that since the Sovereign has “paramount authority” in government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the Sovereign–the people–than the Executive branch of the Federal government can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America’s founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events, the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.

As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective states. (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com ) More specifically, the states of Tennessee and Montana have passed “Firearms Freedom Acts,” which have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.

As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee’s assertion of jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an “open letter” in Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State’s statute. (Seehttp://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfirearmsfreedomact.pdf )

This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government’s ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract, what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject to their control and power?

This issue is the very same reason why the Colonists declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and why Great Britain declared the Colonies to be in a state of rebellion against the government. The conflict was in fact the application of their Constitution: whether it be a “living” constitution or whether it be “fundamental laws” based upon the intent and will of the people. The fact is, it was the Great-Britain-view of their constitution verses the American-view of their constitution that caused the conflict between the crown and the colonies. One historian summarizes the conflict this way:

“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. [The colonists], on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but [Great Britain believed] that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain . . . Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking-up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [University of Michigan, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237).

Indeed, the issues of taxation during the 1760s and 1770s were only fruits of the underlying issue, and that is, who is Sovereign in America. According to Great Britain, the government had the power to impose its will on the people of America despite the will of the colonies and despite the natural laws governing the compact between the English people and their government. In other words, the government believed that their constitution was “living,” giving the government power to impose its will on the people, without the people’s consent. The colonists, however, saw the matter to be a usurpation of their God-given right to be governed by their consent and in compliance with their constitution. The end result: the Sovereigns in each colony seceded from the empire of Great Britain because of Great Britain’s refusal to follow their constitution.

Do Sovereigns throughout our States United not see the significance of the issue we are facing today? Are we so blind to history that we cannot compare this scenario to the very scenarios that led to the American Revolution? Are we so ignorant as to the intents and purposes of the US Constitution? Consider that the “supreme laws of the land” were never meant to be carte blanche powers of the Federal government, but instead federal laws were expressly limited by the terms of the compact between and for the States, found in the Constitution. This concept of “supreme law of the land” was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a “centralist” in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:

“[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS.”

Hamilton’s legal position concerning the limited power of the federal government and the “supreme law of the land” was the consensus of the founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America’s founding was there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those “fundamental laws” that we the people have created and imposed upon the government to follow and uphold.

Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of “who has the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped their constitutional authority?” The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order denied the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act. The Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s position:

“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.” (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, [New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)

I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say “no” to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom, as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and get absolutely nowhere.

What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty–we the people–and over Jurisdiction–the States. While this article cannot begin to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain parts of their sovereignty for the “more perfect union” of the people within those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.

When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our Declaration of Independence states, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Do you really think after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that those same people who risked everything for independence from those “living-constitutionalists” in Great Britain and who believed in the principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions of our founders.

However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels–the States–the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified. Consider the Sovereigns’ voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:

“We the delegates of the people of Virginia . . . Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH POWER IS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THOSE PURPOSES.” (Emphasis added.)

However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in the people of the respective states; it does not recognizes the respective States’ jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states, the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom Act.

The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy, indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and tyranny resisters.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

by Aaron Turpen

The climate bill that passed the House of Representatives in June 26, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR2454, aka “ACES”) and better known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill, had many benefits. None of those benefits were for the American people or even the climate.

All of those benefits were for the lobbyists and Legislators.

On July 14, the non-partisan, non-profit group MAPLight.org published their findings of what they called the “watered down climate bill.” In that report, they compared proposed amendments and the person(s) proposing them to the campaign funding and donations received from groups related to the changes that amendment would make.

What they found is that, behind the rhetoric, ACES was just more business as usual in Washington. Those who got paid, performed for their benefactors. Those who didn’t, voted against.

Several amendments are on the ACES list that MAPLight compiled. What was most interesting to me, however, was how truly bipartisan the bribe-taking was. Going down the list of Congressmen and their party affiliation shows that Democrat or Republican, it made no difference. They were all running around with their hand out, waiting for the highest bidder.

As a for instance, let’s look at the “redefining renewable energy” markups. Fred Upton (R-MI) offered an amendment to redefine renewable energy to include nuclear energy. His amendment was narrowly defeated (29-26). Those who supported his amendment received twice as much money from nuclear interests as those who voted no. I guess the nuclear pushers didn’t pay off enough people.

In fact, about the only amendment proposed that was distributed almost entirely on party lines was the now-famous Randy Forbes (R-VA) bill that would have gutted the entire climate bill to start with. This is not surprising, since top contributors to Forbes’ campaigns from 2003-08 were a gas pipelineconstruction company, large defense contractors, and similar groups. All of which lobbied to oppose the Cap-and-Trade bill.

Even more telling, though, is when you go beyond MAPLight’s analysis and look at who benefits from the ACES bill as a whole. This is easily measured, since the number one thing the ACES bill does is create a new commodities market for carbon emissions. Assuming the bill passes as-is through the Senate, of course.

Who will benefit the most from that new carbon market? Why, those who are already trading in the underground carbon offsets market and those who are poised with an on-the-books carbon market right now.

Is there such a thing already? Has there already been a carbon market created in the U.S. by someone who stands to benefit greatly were it enacted into law and made mandatory to corporations around the nation that they participate?

Of course. That person’s name is Al Gore.

Gore’s private equity firm, called Generation Investment Management (GIM), isn’t even based in the U.S. It’s in London. This firm purchases carbon offsets from green companies and endeavors around the globe and then sells those offsets to its clients. Basically, a business that produces emissions can offset those by purchasing offsets (investing in) companies that do the reverse.

That in itself is laudable and creates no free market problems. It’s voluntary, fits into the paradigm of businesses working together in non-coercion, and could be productive. Where it gets tricky is when the overall “carbon market” is considered.

This market includes several foundations and exchange groups. The largest of the carbon exchange groups is Chicago-based CCX (Chicago Climate eXchange) and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) of Great Britain. These two are likely to become either the excahnges of choice for an ACES-created carbon market, or the measuring sticks used to build a new one.

In either case, the co-founder of Gore’s GIM is Hank Paulson. Recognize that name? Yep, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson. Sachs owns 10% of CCX. In fact, most of the founding partners of Gore’s GIM are Sachs officials or former management. Including Peter Knight, Gore’s Chief of Staff when he was in the Senate and manager of the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in 1996.

This means that if Cap-and-Trade becomes a reality, Gore will be at the forefront of those who’ll profit by it in a huge way. Not only will his own offset investment group be ready to pounce and start taking futures, but his stake in America’s only current, recognized carbon exchange will be worth a lot of money.

The Capital Research Center (CRC)’s Foundation Watch published a short, 9-page pamphlet entitled “Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It” in 2007. That short pamphlet details much more than I’ve done here and clearly shows who really benefits from a carbon tax.

It also shows why Al Gore has featured so prominently in early (one-sided) debates, the introduction of ACES, and other climate change legislative work in the past few years.