The Bilderberg Group is having it's annual, secretive meeting in Virginia this week.  So what?  Why should I care?  According to wikipedia and other sources, they're a group of super-wealthy power brokers who meet and discuss what direction the world will take over the next 12 months.  Allegedly, they refer to the non-elite as 'feeders', pushing some agenda of global domination and population reduction.  Honestly, I don't see how a bunch of old rich coots, CEOs and elected officials can accomplish anything more than arguing and taking Geritol. 

I could be wrong, though.  An elderly reporter named Jim Tucker has been covering these meetings for something like 30 years.  He has made a few accurate predictions (such as the interest rate housing bust predicted back in 2005) based on information gathered by moles or informants inside the conference.  According to his sources, the 'Bilderberg-ers' are violating the public trust by entering into clandestine agreements with foreign leaders and businesses.  I have no doubt that kind of thing is happening, but I find it harder to believe that they have some elaborate goal of human enslavement, as some theorists claim.  As I said, though, I could be wrong.

Let's get this one thing straight up front:  There will always be taxes.  As long as there is government, money will have to be collected and spent for national defense, upkeep of public buildings, etc...  The real argument is HOW the revenue is collected.

The most democratic way of collecting tax is through apportionment, which is what the US Constitution originally demanded. ^[1]  Our national defense, our economy, and our government were extremely successful with this type of taxation.  Dividing the tax burden equally among all citizens worked, and never failed to generate enough revenue to fund government.

In 1910, a small group of bankers met, in secret, to discuss the creation of a centralized bank that would control credit and monetary policy for the country. ^[2]  An income tax was to be implemented as the best way to fund this bank.  This concept had been long though of as anathemic to democracy and freedom, being defeated several times before ^[3] (see Andrew Jackson quote at bottom.) ^[4]   Nevertheless, through a rather convoluded series of then-legal discussions and transactions between the bankers and a set of congressmen, an income tax act was passed in 1913, altering the Constitution and making it legal to tax a percentage of a person's income. ^[5]

Outraged citizens, when they realized what was being done, began to raise the alarm.  Congressmen who previously supported a central bank, when they realized their huge mistake, began speaking out openly against the back-door tactics of the bankers.  Just when the public awareness was reaching critical mass, World War I broke out.  The attention of the citizenry was drawn elsewhere, and the central bank was allowed to take root. 

After WWI, with the attention of the public returning to domestic affairs, criticism of the central bank concept began to rise again.  The artificial credit created by the central bank resulted in a large economic bubble, simulating prosperity.  For a decade, the country grew in debt, while spending dollars that only existed on the ledgers of banks.  When the voice of dissent began to reach a fevered pitch, the FED pulled the rug out from under the economy, calling in debts for which they knew there were no real dollars to pay, thus popping the bubble.  The country entered a depression. ^[6]

Again, concerns were drawn away from the central bank.  Families worried more about feeding their children and loved ones than what was going on in Washington.  Ironically, government grew to an unprecedented size as socialist programs were instated to help the poor that the Federal Reserve created with it's economic policies. ^[7]  Almost instantly, reliance on government assuaged most strong dissent.

Yet there were still those who argued vehemently against the income tax and Federal Reserve.  They continued their arguments against the unprecedented, cancer-like growth of the central government.  By the end of the 1930's, many people recognized the role the Federal Reserve played in creating the Great Depression. In response to this threat, the FED created the FOMC ^[8], which was almost instantly seen as an appeasement tactic that appeared to create a governmental check on the privately owend and run Federal Reserve system, but did no such thing.  In fact, the FOMC made the FED more invasive than ever.  Before anything could be done about it, however, war broke out again in Europe. 

As WWII raged, government continued to grow in size and scope.  With the collective attention of the country drawn to faraway lands, monetary policy was virtually unchecked.  Defeating the Axis powers was the goal, and anything done that could even be perceived as contributing to acheive this goal was allowed.

With the end of WWII, again the public scrutiny turned towards the Federal Reserve and IRS.  Then came Korea.  After Korea, Vietnam.  Following Vietnam, however, a new public awareness was created.  The public ire raised by Vietnam was great enough that leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were allowed enough time to attack the bloated government bureacracies created over the last 4 decades. ^[9]

But the FED and IRS were so rooted, their tentacles so deep into government, that by the time Reagan was elected, little reform could be accomplished in the 8 years of his presidency.  The tax 'simplification' reform of 1986 was so influenced by big money that it became a farce, and grew to a size that dwarfed the original code. 

Today, most people are so confused that they believe the Federal Reserve and IRS are institutions as old as the country.  The bank-controlled media will do nothing to correct this misconception, either.  Most of the media outlets, and their employees, will promote this deception, either willfully, or through ignorance. 

If you are one who still believes this to be the case, I'll leave you with the words of Andrew Jackson as he dismantled the 'Federal' bank that tried to control our country's money supply when he was President:

"If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

A friend of mine sent me a link to a video called 'Speechless: Silcencing the Christians', which is apparently a new series being produced about the bias against Christianity in society.  It never ceases to amaze me how easily government can be used to enforce policies that violate our rights.  The video points out gaping hypocrisies in our society and, mainly, the public school system.  Although my blood pressure went up, I enjoyed watching this.  It reminded me of the endless complaints when I was in school about how public school was perverting education.

The only problem I have with the video is that they seem to ignore the fact that socialism is the DIRECT CAUSE for all of the problems they outline.  If schools weren't public, government would have no say in them.  Government doesn't do anything well on the social side.  Never has, never will.  Coulter mentions downsizing government, but fails to point out that eliminating socialist programs like public education would practically eliminate all the problems she's ranting about.

Allowing socialism to flourish is why ideologies we disagree with are forced down our throats in the name of 'political correctness'.  Arguing about what is or isn't allowed in public schools is a moot point if socialism is abandoned.  Why don't they point out how keeping the corrupt public school system gives a foothold to the very ideas they're arguing against?

I've posted links to the video below: 

low bandwidth option 1

low bandwidth option 2

high bandwidth option 1

high bandwidth option 2

I am very much looking forward to the GOP debate tonight.  The Florida primary has the possiblility to make footnotes out of frontrunners.  This is the last chance the candidates have to point up differences, strengths and weaknesses before the state holds it's primary next week.   It promises to be a good debate, and, no doubt, entertaining.

With the exit of Fred Thompson, the second Thompson to bow out of the GOP primary, the field is narrowed to 5 candidates running national campaigns.  2 of them, Huckabee and Giuliani, are reported to be out of money, asking aides to work for free.  A 3rd, McCain, has had money problems practically since his campaign began.  For McCain and Giuliani, Florida is a must win, for Huckabee, perhaps a swan song.

Romney keeps moving, buying votes as quickly as he can.  Florida probably wouldn't end his race, unless he comes in dead last with a zero by his percentage mark.  Even then, I feel he'd be willing to finance himself through the convention.

Paul, on the other hand, continues to rake in money from his supporters, to the tune of millions a day, whenever they decide he needs a boost.  He could probably be financed until November, no matter who gets the GOP nomination, should he choose to keep his name in the hat.  As far as buzz goes, Paul is the only candidate generating any new buzz for himself.  The four candidates dubbed 'front-runners' by the media have failed to build on their momentum, even after winning the traditional early primarys and caucuses.

With the near media blackout of Paul, time may be his biggest enemy. Super Tuesday is right around the corner and many die-hard Republican faithful still haven't heard his message.  Instead, they have had to rely on the media, who have failed to cover him, giving more time to his rivals. 

It will be very interesting to see what strategy the candidates employ, tonight.  Which candidate will atttack, on what basis, etc...  I'm very excited. 

I didn't watch the debate of the Fox News Channel last night.  I have been somewhat boycotting Fox ever since Chris Wallace almost admitted he takes his 'marching orders from al quaida'.  I did, however, watch the debates on ABC Saturday night.  It seemed as though none of the candidates were very knowledgable on economic issues, save, of course, Ron Paul. 

I read an article on CBS' website this morning that accused Huckabee of attempting to steal Ron Paul's economic platform during the Fox 'debate'.  I guess he realized where he was coming up short, and, in Dr. Paul's absence, figured he could steal a little piece for himself.  The problem with that is the fact he had never considered the economical implications of fiat money before Ron Paul came along.  I don't think I want a President who changes his rhetoric to match what's popular.  I want someone who is true to his principles, not just a Bible thumper... I want someone who understands the free market, capitalistic democracy that made America great is the most compassionate system. 

Ron Paul had to explain the fiat system to Fred Thompson Saturday night.  I most certainly don't want a President who has been in government, the Senate no less, and still doesn't understand how our monetary system works.  Thompson is far too lazy.  I get the impression that he would be slow to act in a national emergency.  Romney would probably call his lawyers to find out what to do.

Giuliani and McCain are dead in the water.  McCain may do well in New Hampshire, but I don't know of a single southerner who would even consider voting for McCain.  His alienation of the religious right has placed him in the un-electable category in the south.  Giuliani just has no appeal, other than his clamourous interjections of '9/11', and that's been growing old, of late. 

The most informed and electable candidate is Ron Paul.  He fared as well as Thompson and McCain in Iowa, and utterly destroyed Giuliani.  The chameleon characteristics of Huckabee, coached by former Clinton campaign staff, have garnered him the coveted victory in Iowa, but in this age of instant communication, he won't last much longer.  Romney has bought 2nd place in Iowa, and may do so in New Hampshire, but he will find that buying votes becomes much harder in the fiercely independent and religiously protestant south.  Paul understands our economy better.  He understand that all other planks in the platform are connected to the economy.  This, I believe, gives him the best shot at actually taking the nomination.