2011
04.28

As I look at the pictures of tornado devastation here in my home state of Alabama I can only pray that people are able to rebuild their lives. There are so many dead and so many homes destroyed. So many children that don’t have parents today. And the only reference point I have to compare it to is war. The photos I see of this damage reminds me of the devastation of Iraq during the war. Remember “shock and awe?”. God, please have mercy on my soul for ever thinking that was somehow ok.

Wartorn Iraq - 2001

Tornado Damage in Alabama - 2011

Add Comment »
2011
04.24

misunderstood everything as political. And, it’s one of the hardest things to balance for Christians. The political and the spiritual. The church is always at odds with the state. And when it’s not, something is bad wrong. The state is always seducing those within the church into it’s way of thinking, as it did with Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin who plotted Jesus death.

And what was it that they finally used to blackmail Pilate into going along with this sham of a death sentence?

From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

–John 19:12

The Jewish leaders that manufactured Christ’s death used political blackmail against Pilate to ensure His crucifixion. To them it was all political.

We can discuss the wrongs of the state, but let’s always remember that trying to take control of the state isn’t going to solve anything. Politics corrupts all who touch it. On this day when we celebrate a risen saviour, remember that what Jesus resurrection conquored was not the state. He destroyed the power of death itself. The political class, which included the Jewish leadership that had him killed, missed the whole point. Let’s not make the same mistake today.

Add Comment »
2011
04.23

Manufacturing Consent

If you haven’t seen this classic Noam Chomsky documentary, it’s totally worth your time. It’s an analysis of how big media manipulates public opinion in favor of what big politics of big business wants. It’s fascinating.

You can actually watch the entire thing here while it lasts on Google Video. The quality is terrible though. It’s better to get the disc from Netflix.

He wrote that “rationality belongs to the cool observers” while the common person follows not reason but faith. The cool observers, he explained, must recognize “the stupidity of the average man,” and must provide the “necessary illusion” and the “emotionally potent oversimplifications” that will keep the naive simpletons on course. As in 1650, it remains necessary to protect the “lunatic or distracted person,” the ignorant rabble, from their own “depraved and corrupt” judgments, just as one does not allow a child to cross the street without supervision.

–Chomsky, Force and Opinion

Add Comment »
2011
04.18

So, does this qualify as protecting our freedom? Warning: GRAPHIC!

The clip presented here is excerpted from ‘Death Zone,’ a chilling video collected and shared by members of the “kill team” of U.S. soldiers who murdered civilians in Afghanistan and mutilated the corpses. Shot through thermal imaging, the grainy footage shows two Afghans suspected of planting an IED being blown up by an airstrike. While the deaths may have resulted from a legitimate combat engagement, the video itself represents a clear violation of Army standards. Scenes of the attack have been edited into a 15-minute music video, complete with a rock soundtrack and a title card. This clip from the video picks up shortly before the airstrike begins, accompanied by the song “En Vie” by Apocalyptica, a cello rock band from Helsinki. The video ends with grisly still images of the casualties, followed by closing credits. It was passed from soldier to soldier on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome video filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2.

–Rolling Stone

Add Comment »
2011
04.14

In May of last year I wrote a blog post titled “Don’t Worry About China.” My theory was that, based on the history of how the media spins things, China’s economic situation is probably far worse than we realize. Remember that in Russia’s hey day the media touted them as an unstoppable economic force. Same with Japan in the 80′s. It’s not until the inevitable collapse that you see it was smoke and mirrors.

And now we have China. The latest command economy to waste vast amounts of resources. Just like the Soviets built train stations in the middle of nowhere with no tracks running to them, so does China build vast cities with nobody living in them. Watch and awe:


[H.T. - The Mises Blog - Link]

China is in the midst of the largest housing bubble the world has ever seen. And when it pops, either economically or socially, it’s going to be nasty. Real, real nasty.

Add Comment »
2011
04.13

This story hit close to my heart. A similar situation happened to my family a few years ago. But, instead of being acquitted, my family member was executed, even though he was innocent and we all knew it. Looking back, I now see that it was that event that initiated my deep seated distrust of government. Read the whole article(link at the bottom) and see if you still trust in the so-called “rule of law” afterwards:

John Thompson was acquitted after 18 years in prison.

The prosecutors involved in my two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.

In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.

I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.

Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.

If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.

A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.

–John Thompson, NY Times

Prosecutors are just as, if not more corrupt than the people they put in jail. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe that, I have a story to tell you.

Add Comment »
2011
04.12

Today marks the 150th anniversary of The War to Prevent Southern Independence(i.e. Civil War). This is a very important bit of history to know. Honestly, it’s this episode that had a large impact on me becoming anti-war over the last few years. If I could be lied to and told a bunch of propaganda for years in order to get me to believe that the South was the aggressor and that Lincoln fought the war to free slaves then I could also easily be lied to about modern wars. I could be easily duped into thinking that we are the “good guys” and brown people from the middle-east are the “bad guys.”

What caused the battle at Fort Sumter 150 years ago this day?

If you read Lincoln’s first inaugural-address with any care at all, you’ll see that it was simply a declaration of war against the South. It was also filled with lies and specious reasoning. In 1861, the official government-charter for the U.S. was the U.S. Constitution. In writing it, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (some of the most-canny politicians in the country) had pointedly omitted from it the “perpetual union” clause which had been a main feature of the unworkable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union–the U.S.-government charter which had preceded the Constitution.

Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution–which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold–did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 Americans and Confederates–primarily in order to perpetuate himself in political office.

Lincoln had said he would go to war to “preserve the Union.” But in order to start the war, he would somehow have to maneuver the South into firing the first shots, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition.

The most-likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger–that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson’s Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson’s men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished. (This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.

Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do.

President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them.

After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson’s men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor–which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.

It turned out that Lincoln’s postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, had a brother-in law, Gustavus V. Fox, who was a retired Navy-captain and wanted to get back into action. Fox had come up with a plan for resupplying Fort Sumter which would force the Confederates to fire the first shots–under circumstances which would make them take the blame for the war. Lincoln sent Fox down to Fort Sumter to talk with Maj Anderson about the plan; but Anderson wanted no part of it.

Lincoln had Fox pitch the plan to his Cabinet twice. The first time, the majority said that Fox’s plan would start a war and were unenthusiastic about it. But the second time, the Cabinet members got Lincoln’s pointed message, and capitulated.

Meanwhile, Congress got wind of the plan. Horrified, they called Gen Scott and others to testify about it; Scott and the other witnesses said they wanted no part of the move against the Confederacy in Charleston; and nor did Congress. Congress demanded from Lincoln–as was Congress’s right–Fox’s report on Maj Anderson’s reaction to the plan. Lincoln flatly and unconstitutionally refused to hand it over to them.

Lincoln sent to Secretary Cameron (for transmittal to Secretary Welles) orders in his own handwriting (!) to make the warships Pocahantas and Pawnee and the armed-cutter Harriet Lane ready for sailing, along with the passenger ship Baltic–which would be used as a troop ship, and two ocean-going tugboats to aid the ships in traversing the tricky shallow harbor-entrance at Charleston. This naval force was to transport 500 extra Union-soldiers to reinforce Maj Anderson’s approximately-86-man force at Fort Sumter–along with huge quantities of munitions, food, and other supplies.

The Confederacy would, of course, resist this invasion–in the process firing upon the U.S. flag. The unarmed tugs would, of necessity, enter the harbor first, whereupon they would likely be fired upon by the C.S.A., giving Lincoln the best-possible propaganda to feed to the Northern newspapers, which would then rally the North to his “cause.”

Lincoln sent orders for the Union naval-force to time its sailing so as to enter Charleston Harbor on 11 or 12 April. Next, Lincoln sent a courier to deliver an ultimatum to Gov Pickens on 8 April, saying that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peaceably or by force. There was no mistaking the intent of that message.

Lincoln had set the perfect trap. He had given President Davis just enough time to amass his forces and fire upon the U.S. Navy. But if Davis acquiesced instead, Lincoln need merely begin sending expeditionary forces to recapture all of the former Union-forts in the South now occupied by Confederate forces; sooner or later Davis would have to fight; and the more forts he allowed Lincoln to recapture in the interim, the weaker would be the military position of the C.S.A. As a practical matter, Davis was left with no choice.

–Frank Conner, How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War…

Notice how Lincoln maneuvered the South into attacking first. He basically put the CSA into a position where they would either have to accept permanent US military bases(Jefferson Davis tried to meet with Lincoln to discuss repayment for the land the forts were on) throughout their country or have to fight back. Sound familiar? This would become a scheme used time and time again by American presidents to this day. Demonize the enemy and then slowly turn the screws diplomatically to where war is the only available option left to them. I’ve said it before: the South has been occupied and demonized by an invading army before. We should know better than to believe the lie.

2 comments »
2011
04.12

When people talk about gold and silver you often hear the description of them as “hedges against inflation.” I know I’ve covered this before, but I thought it might be worth going over again just to demonstrate why these two precious metals are worth investing in these days.

First, let’s look up how much a pair of dress pants might cost you in 1964 (the last year that American coinage actually contained 90% silver). According to my new favorite book, The Value of a Dollar, I see that the average pair of slacks cost $4.99 in 1964. Ok, now dividing by $.25 we see that it would take 20 quarters to buy those pants. The silver content in a 1964 Washington quarter was 0.18084 ounces. That means you paid roughly 3.62 ounces of silver for a pair of pants in 1964.

Now, let’s move forward to 1999. Silver averaged $5.22 per ounce that year. That means that the 3.5 ounces of silver you paid for a pair of pants in 1964 is now worth $18.90. Can you guess how much the average cost of a pair of casual slacks cost in 1999? About $20.

So the point is, an ounce of silver/gold will always tend to retain it’s purchasing power(notice I didn’t say “value”) as long as it’s open to the market to set the price. That’s called hedging against inflation.

If you had kept those original quarters from 1964 and used them as legal tender they would still only be worth $5. But if you had melted them down(which is illegal) for their silver content and sold the silver on the open market, you would have gotten $18.90.

Add Comment »
2011
04.08

Here, Ron Paul gives some brief history of the metal currency market in regards to monetary policy. He asks some questions of Terence Hanlon about how the Mint distribution works and if the Mint could handle selling direct to the public:

Add Comment »
2011
04.08

Beth Deisher, Editor of Coin World:

Mr. Terence Hanlon, President, Dillon Gage Metals Division:

Mr. Ross Hansen, Founder, Northwest Territorial Mint:

Mr. Raymond Nessim, CEO, Manfra, Tordella & Brookes, Inc:

Add Comment »