Posted on 10/07/2011 3:33:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed,"___ Herman Cain
Of course Herman Cain, former ringleader of the Federal Reserve would say something like that, especially when the Federal Reserve and its un-constitutional money monopoly is in defiance of our founding fathers expressed intentions, and is used to plunder what America‘s Businesses and labor have produced.
And what did Daniel Webster have to say regarding working people: "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."
Was Mr. Webster making something up? I think not as our founders were pretty much in agreement!
During the federal convention which framed our Constitution our founding fathers specifically voted to forbid a power to Congress to “emit bills on the credit of the united States” , and intentionally forbid any notes being made a legal tender! See: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
______ cut ______
Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.
Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")
On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.
______
Our founding fathers were well aware of the historical thievery which takes place when notes of any kind are made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. And that is why they intentionally voted to forbid any notes being made a legal tender which, if allowed, would create an evil money monopoly and force businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, even if they were not “safe and proper”.
To bad our “conservative’ talk show hosts avoid talking about two specific key issues which our founding fathers addressed in great detail and provided specific rules in our Constitution to encourage and protect a free market system and prevent Congress‘s power of taxation being abused. The two key issues which our “conservative” talk show hosts fail to address are:
Federal Reserve Notes having been made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE in defiance of our Constitution’s legislative intent, and our Constitution’s “fair share formulas” for both taxation and representation:
FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
FAIR SHARE OF ANY GENERAL TAX LAID AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.
A few days ago Glenn Beck had Herman Cain on his radio show promoting his 9-9-9 plan, which includes a “national sales tax’, in addition to a 9 percent tax on corporate profits, and a 9 percent tax upon working people’s earned wages.
Glenn Beck was all in favor of the addition of Cain’s new 9 percent national sales tax to feed the beast in Washington, and didn’t even bother to play devil’s advocate and question its constitutionality, or the rational behind adding a new tax to Congress‘ menu while keeping existing taxes on incomes alive.
This is a typical example of our so called “conservative” talk show hosts avoiding two of the most important issues addressed by our Founding Fathers.
Why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts will not talk about the unconstitutionality of federal reserve notes being made a legal tender for all debts public and private, nor talk about the rule of apportionment and how our founder’s agreed it would apply to any general tax laid among the States? Has Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc., ever mentioned our Constitution‘s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States or federal reserve notes having been made a legal tender in defiance of our founders expressed intentions?
JWK
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.___ James Madison
If we work hard most of these guys are going to be gone and we should get some real leadership in the Senate.
Is there an echo in here? ;-)
I do trust Perry more than the rest of the field.
Romney and Newt are shapeshifters.
I think many of the rest are too rigid.
I think Cains repeatedly relying on the super committee shows me that he is a shape shifter too.
I really want to like the man, and I believe that you will find me being a proponent of him many times in the past, but the man is in the arena now and he has some splainen to do.
GMTA
How is he going to do that?
They are elected officials, but Cain has elevated the idea that representation can go to hell.
We'll just rely on a hand select "Super Committee"
He has in his own proposal elevated them as the voice of America.
"Not my fault if they make a bad call"
Color me skeptical of the 999 plan.
Of a certainty there is a hole involved, but having his head shoved up it should take care of the tinfoil leakage.
Look I don’t care if you like him or not, your post show you to be a loyal Perry back. I have no problem with that pick who you want, but stop pretending you want to find out more about Cain. Back your man ride for your brand I can respect a man for that, but what you are doing won’t change your mind or anyone else’s so why do it unless you want to cause strife. Good luck I am sure if nothing else Perry is a good American and a good Texan.
I do agree that we should focus on the Senate as much, if not more so than the executive office this go around.
So what if he was associated with the Federal Reserve, though? Heck, at least he understands what they do. The rest of this bunch has no clue, and Obama is even worse.
The select committee only operates at the will of the current treasury head. A victory for Cain or any other Conservative (Perry, Pawlenty, etc) would mean a rejection of Obama’s agenda. To get the numbers for a Presidential win, that means you would have greater Republican turn out, and thus, it won’t just be the Presidency that is affected but house and senate races as well.
It would also be a swift kick into the general attitude of Obama’s theories. He has put all his cards down and if they are rejected, the Dems would be afraid to go back there for a while lest they also lose their jobs.
Being a Regional Federal Reserve bank President means he wasn’t involved in monetary policy or currency valuation or any of that Jekyll Island stuff, but he does have a better knowledge of how the entire system operates and can deal with it more effectively than those who screech about it the loudest but don’t even know the difference in the Regional Banks and the Board of Governors (or don’t even know the difference between the Fed, Treasury and Mint as some of the vocal ones seem to portray).
Mr Cain has some vetting to be done.
I like the guy.
I just think his plan is weak.
1. You’ve been here a little over 10 years and this is the best you can do?
2. Why do you spew this worthless garbage here? Free Republic is demeaned by your crap.
3. Why, after posting this tripe, do you run and hide? You won’t even hang around to defend this rubbish.
I think all of our candidates reject Obamas agenda.
Yes, but my point is that whether he was or wasn’t involved in monetary policy has little to do with anything, except that I would rather have a guy who has a clue what the Fed does. I think Romney probably has a loose understanding, and the other candidates probably have a vaguer understanding, but Obama has none.
Well I guess you know better than a guy like Steve Forbes So tell us all about it.
Like said if Perry was such a good candidate you should be able to promote him on his merits and not have to use what you see as faults in others.
I'm calling post traumatic disorder.
The economy is rolling here in Texas.
You’ll hear more about it.
Perry is FIGHTING Obama and the EPA, You’ll hear more about it.
Perry is fighting the feds on illegal immigration, you’ll hear more about it.
Didn’t mean to sound arguing, just trying to deflect some of the conspiratorial stuff like in the original post that tries to equate Cain to Uncle Ben Bernanke.
(I ramble a lot).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.