Agreed. Well said.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:18 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]>wrote: > Premise is wrong: > > The only Americans who were ever guilty of treason under this > definition would have been Abraham Lincoln, his cabinet, the "Civil > War" Congress, the Union Army command, and all army volunteers from > the Northern states during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. > Waging war against the Southern states was the very definition of > treason under the U.S. Constitution. > > So the resulting story can be nothing but bullshit. > > The South, with secession, negated their connection to and therefore > any need of compliance with, the US Constitution. They had their very > own. http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html > > On Aug 21, 12:56 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is the Fed Treasonous?by Thomas J. DiLorenzo > > The neoconservative talking heads recently took a short time out from > praising, deifying, and anointing Texas Governor Rick Perry as the next > president of the United States to chastise him for criticizing the Fed. In > particular, he was taken to the neocon woodshed for saying that the printing > of trillions of dollars of paper currency was harmful to the economy and, > since we are in a depression, such an act was "almost treasonous." > > Governor Perry could not have been referring to the actual definition of > treason that is contained in Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, > which reads as follows:Treason against the United States, shall consist only > in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them > Aid and Comfort. (emphasis added).The only Americans who were ever guilty of > treason under this definition would have been Abraham Lincoln, his cabinet, > the "Civil War" Congress, the Union Army command, and all army volunteers > from the Northern states during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. > Waging war against the Southern states was the very definition of treason > under the U.S. Constitution. > > Lincoln rhetorically redefined treason to essentially mean criticism of > himself and his government. This has always been the preferred definition of > treason by American statists, beginning with Daniel Webster, who attempted > to redefine it as such in his famous debate over the nature of the union > with Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina. Lincoln simply adopted > Webster’s subterfuge while subverting the Constitution with his war. > > So where does the Fed fit in here? Was Governor Perry totally off base > when he said the Fed’s irresponsible and reckless behavior is "almost > treasonous." The Fed is not "treasonous" according to the actual definition > of treason in the Constitution. But what the Fed is guilty of is being the > financial handmaiden of the subversion of constitutional government in > America ever since its founding in 1913. It has helped to finance all of > America’s unconstitutional wars and other "military adventures," for > example, beginning with the Korean War. Congress no longer declares war, as > required by the Constitution, and then disguises the costs of war with debt > and with money creation by the Fed. Without the Fed, there would have been > fewer unconstitutional wars over the past 60 years, and the wars that did > occur would have been shorter. > > World War I was a nightmare for civil liberties in America, with > governmental goons literally imprisoning people for such "crimes" as reading > the Bill of Rights in public. The Fed financed about one fourth of that war, > and is therefore partly responsible for such atrocities. The same is true > for World War II and all the other wars, including the most recent ones, > where state power was used to trample on the civil liberties of American > citizens (as always, in the name of "preserving" those same liberties for > us). > > World War I also introduced socialistic central planning to America with > the government policy of "war socialism," which included the nationalization > of numerous industries and the dictating of prices and production quotas in > many others. All price controls are a violation of the contract clause of > the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits laws that abridge legal contracts, > such as those between buyers and sellers or employers and employees. The > contract clause, and much of the rest of the Constitution, was simply > ignored during the World War I years and in the succeeding decades, > especially during the Roosevelt administration. The Fed was instrumental in > making this possible by financing such interventions. > > In his book,Takings, legal scholar Richard Epstein made the argument that > both the New Deal and "Great Society" programs were all unconstitutional > under the actual constitution despite the fact that generations of lawyers > have created case law that essentially rewrites the document as being a > toothless inhibitor of governmental powers. All of these government programs > have been partly financed by the Fed. > > The original Constitution listed a very few enumerated powers of the > federal government in Article 1, Section 8. All other powers were reserved > for the people and the states under the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas > Jefferson considered to be the cornerstone of the entire document. The > creation of the Fed in 1913, along with the federal income tax in that same > year, was one of the final nails in the coffin of the Jeffersonian > constitution. Armed with the ability to engage in legalized counterfeiting, > virtually all political power became centralized in Washington, D.C. All > states became effective franchises of the central government who could > easily be bribed or bullied into submission with federal grants or the > threat of their withdrawal. > > Thanks to the Fed, American presidents can behave like world dictators, > ordering the dropping of bombs anywhere and everywhere on a whim without any > consent by Congress or anyone else. Thanks to the Fed, the majority of > Americans are on some kind of governmental dole and are therefore neutered > as opponents of the never-ending growth of government. They do not really > have free speech rights, in other words. The same is true of all > corporations that receive government subsidies. Or even if they do not, > government has become so powerful that it can use its oppressive regulatory > powers to ruin any business person who dares to speak up against the > government too effectively. Thus, the Fed may not be responsible for > "levying war" against the states, the definition of treason that is in the > Constitution, but it has played a crucial role in the destruction of the > system of federalism or states’ rights that was established by the American > founders. Perhaps Governor Perry can do a better job of articulating this > point the next time he attempts to steal Congressman Ron Paul’s thunder on > the campaign trail.http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo212.html > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
