Is Janet Yellen Trying to Trigger a Recession For Political Purposes?

The Fed is supposed to be a neutral, independent entity. However, that myth went out the window when Bernanke “gifted” QE 3 to Obama in 2012 to aid with the latter’s re-election bid.

The Yellen Fed seems to be even more committed to defining the Fed as nothing more than a leftist establishment mechanism. Back in October when it still looked like Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 Presidential election, Yellen commented that she was considering letting the economy run “hot” meaning allowing inflation to rise without implementing additional rate hikes.

One month later, Donald Trump won the Presidency and Yellen announced she wanted to hike rates in December with three more additional hikes in 2017.

Now, 3Q16 growth was supposedly 3.5%. If that had been true, then Yes, the Fed should consider hiking.

However, since that time GDP growth has collapsed. 4Q16 growth came in at a measly 1.9%. And 1Q17 GDP growth has collapsed from a forecast of 3% in early February to 1.2% today!

So, back in October, when the economy was supposedly growing at an annualized rate of 3.5% Yellen wanted to let the economy run “hot.” And now that the economy is growing 2% rate (and soon to be sub-1% rate based on projections) she wants to hike rates multiple times.

"The Fed is supposed to be a neutral, independent entity."

Let’s argue that the Fed is a neutral, independent entity.

It remains that the MAJOR constitutional problem with the Fed, just as with all other so-called “federal regulatory agencies," it that the Fed is an unconstitutional third-party where 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty is concerned imo.

In other words, the Fed is just another example of corrupt Congress wrongly allowing non-elected bureaucrats get away with stealing and exercising 10th Amendment-protected state powers, the power regulate banking in this example.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had considered constitutionally granting Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate banking but had dropped the idea.

“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.

Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

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.