Alex Jones

At least nine Indian troops and Kashmir militants died during a shootout on Monday, as tensions escalated following a suicide bombing attack that killed more than 40 Indian paramilitaries last week.

The fighting went on for several hours in the Pulwama district, south of India-administered Kashmir’s main city of Srinaga, where Indian soldiers were searching for militants tied to the Pakistan-based Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), which claimed last week’s attack.

Four soldiers, a policeman, three militants and a civilian were killed in the latest clash, officials said. An army major was among the dead, along with three militants from the JeM group.

Security force sources told Reuters news agency that the suspected organizer of the suicide bombing in the disputed region of Kashmir was also killed, echoing reports from local broadcaster NDTV.

Dan Lyman joins Alex Jones to give a small taste of the massive, Islamic invasion happening across Europe.

‘The Time for Talks is Over’

India has blamed the suicide attack on Pakistan, which it says harbors the JeM group, and threatened a “jaw-breaking response.”

Pakistan has warned India against linking it to the attack without an investigation, saying that it was part of New Delhi’s “known rhetoric and tactics” to divert global attention from human rights violations in Kashmir.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday rejected the possibility of talks with Pakistan following the deadly bombing.

“The Pulwama terror attack shows that the time for talks is over,” Modi said in a reference to a possible dialogue with Islamabad to ease tensions. “Now the entire world needs to unite to take concrete steps to deal with terrorism and supporters. Not taking strict measures against terrorism and those against humanity, also encourages terrorism.”

(Photo by Kremlin)

Saudi Arabia Aims to ‘De-Escalate’ Tensions

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia said it would try to “de-escalate” rising tensions between Pakistan and India during a high-profile summit in Islamabad.

The kingdom’s foreign minister spoke at a press conference in Islamabad as Pakistan recalled its envoy from Delhi for “consultations.”

“Our objective is to try to de-escalate tensions between the two countries, neighboring countries, and to see if there is a path forward to resolving those differences peacefully,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

India and Pakistan both administer parts of the border region of Kashmir, with both laying claim to more of the disputed territory. It’s one of the main disputes between the uneasy nuclear neighbors.

Owen Shroyer delivers commentary on the rise of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in America.

Source: InfoWars

Many moviegoers might recognize the following quotation: “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Reality, however, is the exact opposite of what the quote describes. In reality, it is responsibility that precedes power. In a corporation, for instance, when you’re hired you are told your responsibilities and the powers granted to you are those that are necessary for you to accomplish your responsibility.

In John’s family, John’s father demands that everyone stay out of the kitchen while he cooks, lest they distract him. It is not because John’s father has the power to keep everyone out of the kitchen that he has accepted the responsibility of cooking; it is because he is responsible for cooking that he has the power to keep everyone out of the kitchen.

A vast number of self-help books focus on self-responsibility. This is no coincidence. It is only by accepting responsibility for our lives that we can acquire power over our lives. On the other hand, by blaming others for our conditions, we forfeit our responsibility, and consequently, our power.

Responsibility is important not just because it provides power but also because, as psychologist Jordan Peterson has often remarked, most people find the meaning of their lives through responsibility.

Examining American history, it is evident that the expansion of government powers has been a direct result of the government’s theft of the responsibilities of the individual.

There is a rather straightforward argument that is consistently presented by the government in order to justify its theft of responsibilities that rightfully belong to others.

The argument begins by pointing out a problem that exists. Then the argument says that our lives would be better if the problem didn’t exist. The conclusion the government reaches is that since it would be better for the problem not to exist, the government should be responsible for removing it.

Take any governmental expansion as an example.

For example, the Federal Reserve justifies itself in part by noting economic crises are bad and shouldn’t happen. It is then claimed that governments, through their central banks, must be responsible for ensuring that these crises don’t happen. Vast powers are then granted to central banks who attempt to carry out their “responsibilities.”

Similarly, Social Security resulted from the government accepting responsibility of economic security for retirees and other specific groups of people. By doing so, it appropriated to itself the responsibility that belongs to individuals, families, churches, and other private organizations.

Medicare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the recent attempts at universal health care, aim to do the same.

Such theft of responsibility is disguised, and often even accepted, as virtuous. After all, providing solutions to problems is something that corporations do as well, don’t they? Yet the difference lies in the conditions set forth.

On the other hand, when dealing with a corporation, one can acquire the solution to a problem (food to solve hunger, insurance to solve risk of medical issues, and so forth) at a certain specific price. Moreover, rights, responsibilities — and the powers that come with them — are specifically listed and explained.

Governments, however, take on a variety of responsibilities as a justification for greatly expanding powers — claiming these powers are necessary to fulfill these new responsibilities. These powers, however, usually become unlimited, bloated, and expensive. There is no true legal contract between the government and the individuals for whom the government is “responsible” for. Thus, there is no way of holding the government accountable should it fail to keep up its end of the bargain.

Ultimately, the list of “responsibilities” continually grows, but the list of powers grows even faster.

The unconditional manner in which the government offers ‘help’ and seizes an individual’s responsibility serves only to steal the individual’s power over his own life and erode away that which provides him meaning.

Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

Many moviegoers might recognize the following quotation: “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Reality, however, is the exact opposite of what the quote describes. In reality, it is responsibility that precedes power. In a corporation, for instance, when you’re hired you are told your responsibilities and the powers granted to you are those that are necessary for you to accomplish your responsibility.

In John’s family, John’s father demands that everyone stay out of the kitchen while he cooks, lest they distract him. It is not because John’s father has the power to keep everyone out of the kitchen that he has accepted the responsibility of cooking; it is because he is responsible for cooking that he has the power to keep everyone out of the kitchen.

A vast number of self-help books focus on self-responsibility. This is no coincidence. It is only by accepting responsibility for our lives that we can acquire power over our lives. On the other hand, by blaming others for our conditions, we forfeit our responsibility, and consequently, our power.

Responsibility is important not just because it provides power but also because, as psychologist Jordan Peterson has often remarked, most people find the meaning of their lives through responsibility.

Examining American history, it is evident that the expansion of government powers has been a direct result of the government’s theft of the responsibilities of the individual.

There is a rather straightforward argument that is consistently presented by the government in order to justify its theft of responsibilities that rightfully belong to others.

The argument begins by pointing out a problem that exists. Then the argument says that our lives would be better if the problem didn’t exist. The conclusion the government reaches is that since it would be better for the problem not to exist, the government should be responsible for removing it.

Take any governmental expansion as an example.

For example, the Federal Reserve justifies itself in part by noting economic crises are bad and shouldn’t happen. It is then claimed that governments, through their central banks, must be responsible for ensuring that these crises don’t happen. Vast powers are then granted to central banks who attempt to carry out their “responsibilities.”

Similarly, Social Security resulted from the government accepting responsibility of economic security for retirees and other specific groups of people. By doing so, it appropriated to itself the responsibility that belongs to individuals, families, churches, and other private organizations.

Medicare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the recent attempts at universal health care, aim to do the same.

Such theft of responsibility is disguised, and often even accepted, as virtuous. After all, providing solutions to problems is something that corporations do as well, don’t they? Yet the difference lies in the conditions set forth.

On the other hand, when dealing with a corporation, one can acquire the solution to a problem (food to solve hunger, insurance to solve risk of medical issues, and so forth) at a certain specific price. Moreover, rights, responsibilities — and the powers that come with them — are specifically listed and explained.

Governments, however, take on a variety of responsibilities as a justification for greatly expanding powers — claiming these powers are necessary to fulfill these new responsibilities. These powers, however, usually become unlimited, bloated, and expensive. There is no true legal contract between the government and the individuals for whom the government is “responsible” for. Thus, there is no way of holding the government accountable should it fail to keep up its end of the bargain.

Ultimately, the list of “responsibilities” continually grows, but the list of powers grows even faster.

The unconditional manner in which the government offers ‘help’ and seizes an individual’s responsibility serves only to steal the individual’s power over his own life and erode away that which provides him meaning.

Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years.

In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended — the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.


Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years.

In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended — the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.


Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years.

In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended — the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.


Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

The golden rule—“Do to others as you would have them do to you” being the most common variant I have heard–may be the most common ethical touchstone for human interactions.

After all, Simon Blackburn wrote in his 2001 book, Ethics, that the Golden Rule is “found in some form in almost every ethical tradition.” I doubt there is anyone I know who has not heard of it. And I have often heard it used as the gold standard for behavior, applied to individuals, groups and governments.

However, fewer seem familiar with the silver rule, which is the converse of the golden rule—“do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”—even though it has been expressed in far more ways in various religious and ethical traditions. What it instructs us not to do has included “what you would not choose for yourself,” “what you do not want to happen to you,” what would anger if done to you by others,” “what you yourself dislike,” “that which is hateful to you,” “that which one regards as injurious to oneself,” and “that which is unfavorable to us,” among others, presenting a more thorough delineation of what not to do than the golden rule provides for what to do.

The silver rule follows the traditional definition of justice—giving each his own. It is reflected by Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he writes “We can often fulfill all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing.” That leaves it below the golden rule on most people’s ethical medal stands, because it seems to hold us to a higher standard. That is true when we are talking about individuals and voluntary associations but when we are talking about governments, the silver rule takes the gold.

When we are considering individuals, the golden rule need not conflict with the silver rule. You and I are each free to go beyond doing nothing harmful to others and do as much good unto them as we choose, using our own resources.

The same is true for individuals who voluntarily associated into groups. You and I together can agree to go beyond doing nothing harmful to others and do as much good unto them as we choose, using our own resources.

When we come to government, however, the golden rule, as commonly understood, conflicts with the silver rule. Say a government decision maker determines to do good, as they see it, unto others. The problem is that government has no resources of its own; only what it commandeers from citizens. Without unanimous consent (which happens how often in government, where control only requires 50%-plus-one consent for most decisions?), resources will necessarily be taken for that purpose against the will of some, and often many. That violates the supposedly less demanding silver rule. That is why Grover Cleveland could say that the U.S. government is “pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men,” without contradicting himself when he said that “though the people support the Government, Government should not support the people.”

The problem arises in such cases because focusing on the golden rule can lead people to perceive someone’s needs or wants, decide that someone should do something about it, and so volunteer the government for the task. But that leaves out a central part of the story. They could have sought to ameliorate the problem in a manner that would not violate the silver rule–doing something about it as an individual or as a voluntary association—but instead decided to employ government’s coercive power to force a substantial part of the tab for their ethical concerns onto others who don’t share their opinions or conclusions.

Another way of saying this is comes from what Adam Smith wrote just before his quote above: “The man who barely abstains from violating either the person, or the estate, or the reputation of his neighbors…does everything which his equals can with propriety force him to do, or which they can punish him for not doing.” That is, government is to be our protector against invasions from outsiders and neighbors. Laws, like the Bill of Rights, should focus on applying “thou shalt nots,” as Justice Hugo Black once put it, against violators of our rights. When it goes further, it treats some citizens as a predator rather than a protector, undermining its central purpose.

Fortunately, there is a form of the golden rule that can reconcile government with the silver rule as well as a truncated view of the golden rule that ignores where the resources must come from. It comes from the hadith, collected accounts of Muhammad and his teachings: “Prophet said: ‘As you would have people do to you, do so to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them.’” In other words, “do only those things under the golden rule that do not violate the silver rule.”

Stewart Rhodes and Alex Jones reveal to listeners how lawmakers in the Texas State Government are taking building the wall into their own hands.

Source: InfoWars

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

Limited Advanced Release

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

39.95

19.95

Take advantage of the upgraded version of a fan-favorite formula – Ultimate Bone Broth!

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/UBB-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/ultimate-bone-broth-formula.html?ims=wmqzu&utm_campaign=Widget+-+BoneBroth+-+50%25+Off&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-BoneBroth-50%25off-Widget

Source: InfoWars

Roger Stone drops exclusive footage today on The War Room of the FBI raid on his house, showing how CNN got a leak and was coordinating with the raid. We also hear from a high school listener who found a Alex Jones is satan flyer at his school. Caller weigh in on the epic weak that was.

GUEST // (OTP/Skype) // TOPICS:
Damian Sulikowski//Skype

Source: The War Room


Current track

Title

Artist