Posted by: graemebird | November 8, 2008

Obama Is Not A Natural Born Citizen And Must Step Down.

The economy will deteriorate and when it does the fact that he was a fraudulent Presidential candidate must get wings if the West is to maintain anything like a respect for law and order. If Obama isn’t thrown out does that mean I can run for American President? I’m more qualified than him and I wasn’t born in the US either.

It just shows how much co-ordinated social power the left has. A simple thing like this. He was never a valid candidate in the first place. But if the guy is a marxist he has enough cover to do this because everyone who mentions it is going to get shouted down.

So he has no experience. So the left develop a shitrain that says the eminently qualified Palin has no experience. When it was Obama and not Palin. This sort of thing is longstanding and goes back at least as far as the reversal they pulled with Joe McCarthy.

Surely we got lucky with it. Surely the absolutely disastrous economic position will force them to act on this fraud decisively and not let the Marxist actually get away with it.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6Glyla5R7B8&feature=related

Obama is not a natural born citizen. And therefore ran illegally. Not only that he’s doubly out of bounds. Since he took up Indonesian citizenship. In fact he does not appear to have been naturalized back to American citizenship after being an Indonesian citizen. 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xmO4-gd8oAU&feature=related

We will see if suspected hard leftists like Jason Soon turn this burning issue into a thread, or will they be part of the coverup with their obsessive silence on this matter.

Edwin Vieira, Jr. — Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

 

UPDATE. Just to show how far I am behind in this story Justice Souter (Of the Supreme Court) has demanded that the Obama camp come up with a valid birth certificate by December 1. So we now must wait to see if he defies the Supreme Court. Then all hell will break loose and the mainstream media will not be able to keep this one under cover any longer.

Atlas Shrugs: WILL SCOTUS SOUTER TELL OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DECEMBER 1 UPDATED: /OR NOT

Advertisements

Responses

  1. the eminently qualified Palin

    Instead of my making a comment that you’ll wipe Birdy, can you elaborate on that assertion?

    Obama is not a natural born citizen

    McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone—does not that make him ineligible as well?

  2. Well he submitted all this birth certificates and things and it does not appear to be an issue and why would it be. Since the Panama Canal was US territory until Carter gave it away. On the other hand yes I think it could be a bit of a problem. But its all been investigated and we couldn’t bloody get him to stand down in favour of someone better.

    Palin has been in small business, as well as Mayor, as well as Governor. So of course she’s eminently qualified you moron. What fucking qualifications would you accept? A law degree?

    Kemp you are a fucking idiot to even ask the question. Where was your head at with that one you fuckiing moron?

  3. Fuck you are a moron Kemp? Its totally obvious that she has about the best qualification imaginable. This is what all you leftist morons do. You sit around convincing yourself that up is down and that black is white.

    Now here is a literary expert and an expert on literary fraud who shows why Bill Ayers was the ghost-writer behind Barrack Obama’s memoir.

    This whole run was a marxist setup.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

    “That much said, preliminary QSUM analysis supports an Ayers-Obama link. Systems designer Ed Gold–with twenty years of high-level experience in image and signal processing, pattern recognition, and classifier design and implementation–volunteered to run a QSUM scan on multiple excerpts from both memoirs. “I have completed the analysis,” he wrote me, “and I think you will be pleased with the findings.” In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams, he found “a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples that I processed.”

    This is not all its based on. The analysis is pretty thourough for a small piece. Had no-one known that the two worked together or any other detail about the story of this memoir then making the stylistic link would be significant. But already in this story we have two or three lines of convergence.

  4. Re Obama being born in Kenya and allegations that he lost citizenship by having had dual citizenship while in Indonesia:

    If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

    The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.

    I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.

    The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file.

    The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

    After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.

    While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” – and concluded that the stuff was absurd.

    In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

    “(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
    http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

    In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

    Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

    (Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)

    Quotes:

    The Court made the following findings:

    1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

    The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

    2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

    The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

    3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
    is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

    4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
    Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

    However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

    The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

    5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

    The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

    I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

    Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”

  5. “Re Obama being born in Kenya and allegations that he lost citizenship by having had dual citizenship while in Indonesia:

    If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.”

    Not if she was already living there there wouldn’t. And whose to say that there isn’t records there?

    No evidence there.

    “The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. ….”

    Right. But he’s the one who wants to be President. Hence its for him to prove his natural born citizenship.

    “All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.”

    The burden of proof is on him. He’s not being convicted of a crime at this point. Only of not being eligible for a highly restricted office. And he hasn’t come up with the goods.

    “I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.”

    Right. Thats not what the case is based on.

    “The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii.”

    What officials would that be? Can you name them?

    ” They have seen his birth certificate in his file.”

    These are big claims. Can they prove it? Surely it is they who would have the picture showing.

    “The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. ”

    Another big claim. And you link to a blog. Which is a small link for a big claim. And on top of it your link doesn’t work.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts

  6. Strauss I only found your post by accident. My blog automatically decided that you were spam because you had more than one link.

    You better find me a free republic link that actually works to back up these very strong claims or I’m going to suspect your motives here.

    Anyone can make big claims and post a dud link from an allegedly right-wing site. Thats actually a trick thats getting pretty old.

  7. You can and should run for president Graeme. It’s the only way to stop the Ponziblshiviks in their tracks. And of course you’ll be able to put a stop tp al-Qaeda by bombing the shit of Jordan.
    .
    Given the energy, vigour and tirelessness of your campaign in Dobell. Given the massive election funds you raised and huge impact you had I’d say it was cinch.

  8. The suspicions about Jason Soon are confirmed. He’s been seen sipping latte in Surry bloody Hills wearing a Che t-shit and reading Green Left Weekly
    .
    AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!

  9. Well if Obama can I can. But the thing is this. The constitutional stipulation that one must be a natural born citizen and not a duel citizen of any sort WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA.

    It was specifically meant to weed out people like Barrack Saddam Hussein who is clearly a person of globalist loyalties more than a person specifically loyal to the people of the various states of the voluntary union that is the United States Of America.

  10. And when you think about it it SHOULD weed out people like me also. Since while I’m a supporter of the US almost to a fault. The thing is I have mixed loyalties. I’m torn between loyalty to Australia and New Zealand. My loyalty to Australia would come out just barely on top. And the US would come only a clear and unambiguous third. So this is a good constitutional stipulation. All of the constitution ought to be followed. But this is not something that is just horse and buggy day stuff.

  11. Bird

    His mother was american. that’s enough for anyone, sop stop being an idiot.

  12. Bird – Australia is a province of the Great American Empire – Halleuluhah! You mus answer the call. You must rid the word of crazed communist lunatics like Soon and Obama and JC.

    Yes JC is running a secret cell of Maoist insurgents who’re going to take Toorak with guns tomorrow!

    Are yu going to let this happen because you’re loyalty is to one part of the Empire? We are all Rednecks from Arkansas now!

  13. Don’t deny it JC. You’ve been videotaped singing The Internationale and pledging allegiance to Kim Jong-il!

  14. Its you thats being ridiculous JC. He is not eligible to be President. End of story. He is not eligible under the constitution of the United States. Even under the dubious US code he doesn’t qualify.

    If you don’t qualify thats the end of the story. He has to resign and if he were a Republican and not a marxist he would have been forced to step down already. And everyone knows that.

    I don’t qualify and neither do you. I’m sorry you fucking idiot. The constitution does not say if your Mother is American its OK.

    Where does it say that fuckwit?

    Your fucking idiocy never bottoms out. Where is this deal where it says…. if your mum is an American…..YOU’RE IN.

    What a complete fuckwit.

    Now Adrien I’m charging you to push this issue ahead on Catallaxy. Because you know how that Gook Jason is. He is capable of ignoring these matters indefinitely.

  15. JC has a new theory of law. When a marxist breaks the law, the law is now to be changed or ignored.

  16. And when you think about it it SHOULD weed out people like me also

    Because you’re a mentally unstable dipsomaniac?

  17. No because my loyalty to the US would be compromised by my clearly greater loyalty to Australia.

    Now supposing JC was right? Suppose his Mother being American was all anybody really cared about? How is it then that Justice David Souter has requested this Marxist globalists birth certificate?

    Now this is bigtime. Because the British secret service is going to know he’s Kenyan born. And the Chinese secret service will find a way to find out one way or the other. They will then know that he will be paralysed to act in a crisis. If what he needs to do is barely legal in the first place, like nuking half the Chinese navy to save Taiwan, then how can he possibly maintain deterrence if he himself is not legally President?

    At least some Chinese leaders will see it that way.

  18. Bird you ridiculous moron
    How long did Obama live in Kenya? Why would he be more loyal to a place he barely remembers?
    Why shouldn’t Arnie be Prez? How do you figure he will be more loyal to Austria than the US?

  19. “Bird you ridiculous moron
    How long did Obama live in Kenya? Why would he be more loyal to a place he barely remembers?
    Why shouldn’t Arnie be Prez? How do you figure he will be more loyal to Austria than the US?”

    Arnie cannot run for President because he is constitutionally excluded from doing so. Its against the law. And only a constitutional amendment can change that.

    “Bird, his Birth certificate was found to be fine. A judge has pronounced the fact he is a fully fledged American. Stop being an idiot.”

    No that didn’t happen. No lying on my blog JC. Kenya was part of the British Commonwealth even then. It wasn’t its own sovereign country. It was one of the last to get independence as far as I remember. Hence they will know for sure that he is born Kenyan.

  20. “The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place in 1957. Despite British hopes of handing power to “moderate” African rivals, it was the Kenya African National Union (KANU) of Jomo Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963. During the same year, the Kenyan army fought the Shifta War against ethnic Somalis determined to see the NFD join with the Republic of Somalia. The Shiftas inflicted heavy casualties on the Kenyan armed forces but were defeated in 1967.”

    So you see? This was British sovereign territory. World leaders are going to know about this sort of gear.

  21. It didn’t happen JC. You are lying. You cannot lie on my site. If it was proven then Justice Souter would not be requiring his birth certificate.

    You name the judge.

  22. He is not eligible to be President. End of story.
    .
    Okay. You better get a plane to Washington DC toot sweet mate. At least by Jan 20 ’cause I have a feeling that he’s gonna be sworn in.

  23. Yeah I have a feeling that he might be sworn in too. But its December 1st when he will come up with a real birth certificate, a fraudulent one, or whether he will decide to defy the Supreme Court outright.

    The defiance of the Supreme Court is not something that can stay under the radar.

  24. Why shouldn’t Arnie be Prez? How do you figure he will be more loyal to Austria than the US?
    .
    I ham nat more law-yul to Ah-stree-huh zen ze Unided Ztatez. Ze United Ztatez iz vhere I can be zomebody mit der body. In Ah-stree-huh I vaz zimply ze zon of an ex-Nazi who didn;t like me (sob). But now I ham ze pot-smoking, zteroid abusink, vomanizink zon of an ex-Nazi. I belief in ze Vestern ophilosphee of cankerink. Eatink is nat cheatink.

    Graeme vill object because I vant ze peeblez to poot ze biofuel in zere HumVeez unt I buy ze left-ving friend off mine ze Free To Choose book by ze eggsellent Yooden Milton inztead off inzulting zem unt zhootink my Uzis at zem.

    Ze cansdichooshun doezn’t matta, it doeezn’t matta ad all. I vil be ze Prezinaydaw. Unt zen you vill all poot ze biofuel in yaw HumVeez.

    Don’t tawk crezee.

  25. You are lying. And you cannot name the judge who performed this miracle.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=OirvxsUsxb0

  26. You cannot just keep repeating ridiculous lies about unnamed mystery judge that has performed this miracle. In any case judges are not infallible and the judgment can be appealed to a higher court.

  27. The desperation over Obama is amazing. The harm done to the US polity by refusing Obama the presidency on a technicality would be far worse than any imagined harm he’d do. The point is moot anyway:
    .
    The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
    .
    Jus soli? Answer to that Graeme?

  28. Its not a technicality. Don’t be an idiot.

    Yeah its a big problem alright. But its a bigger problem if its in the background and not resolved.

    Its an HISTORICALLY big problem.

    Apparently they had a problem with Martin Van Buren. He was born in a territory or something. Not a US state proper. This had to be resolved. It was resolved early on. This was not running in total contradiction to the intention of the constitution clearly. So he got things sorted in his favour.

    This cannot wash with Obama. Since everyone has always known that you must be a natural born citizen. For starters you must BE a citizen. And he cannot even prove that.

  29. And you cannot name the judge who performed this miracle.

    I can. The judge was U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick who said: the allegantions viz Obama’s citzenship were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”.

    But don’t let that stop you. 🙂

  30. Well thats ridiculous. So it doesn’t matter one way or another. Since he’s not a Supreme Court judge. And its pretty clear that JC was bullshitting about him verifying the birth certificate. He just didn’t want to know.

    So its irrelevant and not anything that JC was claiming.

  31. So no you are wrong Adrien. The judge didn’t perform the miracle of which I and JC spoke.

    Don’t be a smartarse. Clearly you truncated what I said to try and pull a swift one. Don’t try it on again.

  32. Its pretty depressing that this woppy and this Chinaman don’t even have a concept of the law. No seperation between law and their supposed sense of ethics or crude utilitarianism in their view.

    I suppose thats going to be a big problem with politics in this country from here on in. Stupid ethnics practicing familism without any understanding of legal decorum of solid public behaviour.

    And its pretty bad you talking utter shit Adrien and calling this a “legal technicality”

    I’m not interested in you coming here to be a fucking idiot mate. This is no legal technicality. Rather its a constitutional crisis until such time as they can get him to resign.

  33. Don’t be a smartarse. Clearly you truncated what I said to try and pull a swift one. Don’t try it on again.

    Graeme I honestly thought that was what you were talking about. Jeez.

    Does it occur to you or any of the other members of the Cult of the GOP that maybe they deserve to lose govt? Does it occur to you that they are not entitled to it?

  34. this must be your stupidest post ever.

    and no I’m not going to prove my political credentials by linking to crackpot websites, that’s your job.,

    you’re the one who opposes privatisation of electricity, road pricing, banking and free trade.

  35. this must be your stupidest post ever.

    I disagree, Jason, there have many equally stupid posts. But I guess that’s just a question of opinion.

  36. You people are idiots. You are ethnics who cannot even comprehend the vaalid rule of law. Something not known where you come from for quite some time.

    Look here are the facts.

    1. There is no presumption of innocence since its not, in the first instance, a criminal case, but a case of eligibility for office.

    2. This is a clear breach of a more than clear constitutional requirement that no-one has so much ATTEMPTED to skirt anytime in 200 years. Mark Hanna could have become President. At the height of Kissingers prestige people might have even imagined him in the job. But no-one ever considered it since the rule is so clear.

    3. Wherever the constitution has been skirted its usually started with a blurring of the edges. And then this is further blurred until the breaking of it becomes routine. Only seldom have you seen an outright breach. Like in the sedition act, or in Dred Scott. But usually there was some way they could use a preamble to blurr matters. This case does not afford any such blurring. The rules are clear. And at least 4 or 5 of the judges won’t have any interest in blurring matters. And the others won’t be able to nuance this one.

    4. If there is some deal where the Americans get together with the Kenyans and the Hawaiins to mock up false records, well that will be too late. Because plenty of other people are going to already know its bullshit. The Hawaiins and the Kenyans closing the records has already given the game away. Still this sort of gear could work. But it would be a terrible skeleton in the closet.

  37. Go easy on Cambria cuz. You wouldn’t hold an old timer in adult diapers responsible for drooling over the carpet in his nursing home would you?

    Cambria for the love of God, get off the Internet before you embarass your family further. and don’t be trading no more, your family still needs a home to live in.

  38. “Does it occur to you or any of the other members of the Cult of the GOP that maybe they deserve to lose govt? Does it occur to you that they are not entitled to it?”

    Of course they don’t deserve office. Of course they are not entitled to it.

    WHAT THE FUCK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING YOU FUCKING PATHETIC COCKSUCKER?

    Explain yourself you fucking dumbass?

    This is a matter of law.

    What a fuckwit you are Adrien.

    You are such a fuckwit.

    I’m going to wipe all your posts. Since clearly you are only interested in messing up my site with dishonesty and mindless graffitti.

  39. What is going on here. We are importing house-niggers who cannot understand anything about law and the place of law in the decent and fair society.

    Its the death of the West right there.

  40. “you’re the one who opposes privatisation of electricity, road pricing, banking and free trade.”

    How’s that for relentless lying? A lie in every separate part of the statement.

  41. it’s really sad cuz
    you know how I was the first to warn you about cambria? the first to be angry at him?

    Now I think it may have been unjustified.

    I was angry at him because I thought he was of SOUND MIND.

    But now I see one cock-up after another. And its a surprising transformation. And that latest cock-up where he thought you closed down debate? its made me rethink about him

    Clearly the commies SOON and that little faggot ZED have been manipulating him during his SENIOR MOMENTS

    It took a while but they had all the time in the world especially when you got kicked off Catallaxy.

    AND NOW THEY’RE SEEING PAYOFFS.

    They’ve got their hands up him like a puppet-master and where JC goes, there goes the weaker libertarians. The low-wattage nutballs like HILL. The ex-Christian converts like HUMPHREYS with his libertarian-piety.

    its a marvellously evil masterstroke, cuz. Like something out of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE

    JC ain’t to blame for his senior moments.

  42. This is how this sort of outrageous scandal gets so big. When they get to a certain size, natural born traitors like Jason Soon, participate in the coverup.

    And look at where his sympathies lie? With the marxist takeover. Nothing will change his support for the marxist. Even though he now knows that they want conscript labour and an attack on freedom of speech. Even though he now knows that it is illegal and anti-constitutional for the marxist to become President.

  43. Oxygen might help. You know if there is some sort of blockage in the arteries of the brain. If a lot of the brain cells are dying off. Its a massive drop in the quality of your thinking in just a year or less.

    I can still find a link where you are running down Fyodor. Successfully. And now you are imitating him but even more stupid.

    Now what was that killer argument JC and Soon had? Soon is a traitor to all civilised values. A Jacobin if he’s anything. No importance is placed on property rights and valid law. “Free trade” apparently divorced from, and in contempt of, property rights.

  44. He wasn’t born on American soil. He was born in Kenya.

  45. “Since 1934, children of a marriage between a woman having U.S. citizenship and an alien can acquire American citizenship by descent (derivative citizenship) on two conditions: (1) the woman must have lived in the United States before the birth of the child for a minimum of ten years, five of which must have been after she had reached the age of fourteen; (2) the child must establish this claim by residing in the United States for a minimum of two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, unless the alien parent was naturalized in the United States before the child reached eighteen and the child had established a permanent residence in the United States before that age.

    Obama’s mother was 18 when Obama was born, which means she doesn’t meet the 5 year requirement. Thus if it is true that Obama was born in Kenya as some of his family members insist, it would mean Obama is not a legal citizen of he USA and therefore unqualified to be president.”

    You guys are just going to have to get used to it that not everyone is eligible to be President of the United States. And this is a good thing too.

  46. I’m just going to have to repost the last post until you get it.

    “Since 1934, children of a marriage between a woman having U.S. citizenship and an alien can acquire American citizenship by descent (derivative citizenship) on two conditions: (1) the woman must have lived in the United States before the birth of the child for a minimum of ten years, five of which must have been after she had reached the age of fourteen; (2) the child must establish this claim by residing in the United States for a minimum of two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, unless the alien parent was naturalized in the United States before the child reached eighteen and the child had established a permanent residence in the United States before that age.

    Obama’s mother was 18 when Obama was born, which means she doesn’t meet the 5 year requirement. Thus if it is true that Obama was born in Kenya as some of his family members insist, it would mean Obama is not a legal citizen of he USA and therefore unqualified to be president.”

    Got it this time dummy?

  47. You want me to post it again? Did you get it this time? One more for the old man?

    Now the thing is there is a CITIZEN and there is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. And it really appears that Obama is neither.

  48. Clearly you are right KiwiBird II.

    Look how long this has gone on. And the senile old twit has not figured out that there is a difference between a CITIZEN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    “I have explained to him numerous times that even if that were so (even though he was clearly born in Hawaii) Obama would have no issue with the constitutionality of his birth place simply because of the legal rule explained here through jus sanguis which is the right of blood. Because of his American mother, Obama would be treated as though he was born in the US and would accrue all the rights as though he were born in the US.”

    He was not born in Hawaii. He was born in Kenya. And even if he were born in Hawaii he lost his citizenship to Indonesia. And he did not repatriate. So he cannot even prove citizenship. Let alone NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.

  49. LETS GO AGAIN YOU SENILE OLD TWIT.

    You tell me what the difference is between CITIZENSHIP and NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.

    Go!!!!

    Now he has the right to BECOME a citizen perhaps. But he cannot become a natural born citizen. And if he is not an American RIGHT NOW clearly it is against the law for him to be President.

    Now just go through it slowly you senile old prick.

  50. its sad cuz.

    wonder what it could be? the stress? the lack of sleep? alcohol?

    or just bad karma from playing with ponzi money?

  51. Yeah it is sad. But we must persist with the senile old prick until he realises he needs that oxygen bottle or the condition will progress more quickly.

    CAMBRIA. Focus.

    CITIZEN got it?

    VERSUS with me so far?

    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is sure taking the poor old bugger a long time to show that he has integrated the difference between the two concepts into his analysis.

  52. I don’t know. I wondered if it wasn’t a Catholic handicap where the loyalty to the church wasn’t transferred to the golden calf organisation. Hence by potty-training the free-thinking could only travel so far from the golden calf. It would be as if a man with an invisible rubber band around his waste only had the ILLUSION of being able to follow his logic.But then if it lead him too far there would be the sudden snapback where it would be his ability to practice logic that would be destroyed lest he stray from the golden calf again.

  53. what do you think of this Graeme? can you refute him?

    http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/241/6794/banking.asp?nid=6794&wid=241

  54. “Suppose next that fractional reserve banking is legalized and that, Rothbardian warnings notwithstanding, it becomes so popular that all the old warehouse banks embrace it. Will inflation result? Of course it will—but only for a time. …..”

    So far so good.

    “As fractionally-backed notes (or deposit credits) take the place of their 100-percent reserve predecessors, the demand for monetary gold, and hence the demand for gold in general, declines, causing the value of gold to decline with it…..”

    Bear in mind that the decline in the value of gold means inflation.

    ” Because prices are expressed in terms of an (unchanged) gold unit, the price level has to rise. But as the demand for gold doesn’t drop to zero—banks still hold some reserves, and there is still a non-monetary demand for gold—the price level eventually reaches a new equilibrium. ”

    Not really. And bear in mind he ought not be talking about consumer prices. But about all prices. In practice no such equilibrium is reached. The existence of fractional reserve will lead to continual instability.

    “All this assumes, by the way, that the switch to fractional reserves is worldwide: if the switch was limited to a single, small country, then banks in that country would export their unneeded gold reserves to the rest of the world, and worldwide price level changes would be negligible.”

    True. But the small country would hit the wall and go bust and have a recession. Then the gold flow would be reversed for some time, and then they would have monetary inflation again. The cycle never ends. Also. the existence of fractional reserve inhibits mining. Since it tells the market that all this phantom gold has already been mined.

    “The overall extent of the increase in prices, and of the underlying expansion of fractionally-backed bank money, will depend on the reserve ratio banks settle on. The lower the ratio, the higher the rise in prices. But whatever the ratio turns out to be, the system will eventually reach a point at which inflation ceases. The move to fractional reserves results, in other words, in a permanent, once-and-for-all price level change, but not in any permanent change in the inflation rate.”

    Entirely wrong. Although he would be blind to it if his focus is consumer prices. This deserves to be gone through in great detail

    “The overall extent of the increase in prices, and of the underlying expansion of fractionally-backed bank money, will depend on the reserve ratio banks settle on.”

    True. BUT THEY DON’T SETTLE. And also notice how he’s forgotten about the mining industry. They never settle on an implied RAR. They run it up and down. But if they were forced into a 40% RAR in practice that could work quite well.

    ” The lower the ratio, the higher the rise in prices. But whatever the ratio turns out to be, the system will eventually reach a point at which inflation ceases.”

    I’m not faulting his logic But the implied RAR doesn’t turn out to be anything. Rather it turns out to be unstable by its very nature.

    ” The move to fractional reserves results, in other words, in a permanent, once-and-for-all price level change, but not in any permanent change in the inflation rate.”

    You see he started out correctly sussing out that the Austrians call inflation MONETARY INFLATION but not he’s forgotten and his consumer price bias is coming out. Historically fractional reserve gold indeed stabilises CONSUMER PRICE inflation within the bounds of about -3 to 3 per cent. But it leads to absolute havoc in producer and investment prices. For example during the 20’s the monetary inflation was about 7% per year, there was also massive extra spending due to the reduction in the demand for money for holding. Yet consumer prices were dead stable. This is where he is misreading the historical record. Because while fraud-banking-gold really does stabilise consumer prices the fractional reserve plays havoc with producer and investment markets which are far more important.

    “What’s to keep the banks from further reducing their reserve ratios? The answer is that, so long as they all compete on an equal footing, as in a free banking system, each will be inclined to routinely return claims, such as checks or banknotes, received from rival banks.”

    He doesn’t understand the situation. What happens from here is that the bigger banks can create disproportionately more ponzi-money. On account of the fact that its more likely that the money you borrow and spend will then be returned to them. Thats why ING works harder to gain deposits then the Commonwealth bank and pays better interest.

    So no there is nothing to refute really. The kid is a logical enough fellow. Just a monetary unsophisticate.

    But a good link. A productive post. Keep it up.

  55. Cuz

    you should be defending that young fella Sukrit. steering him in the right direction. he’s got the right idea about rothbard except he swallowed too much of the peace and love stuff. see the senile old coot faux-libertarian giving him a hard time?

    http://antiwarlibertarian.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/the-cis-vs-the-ipa/#comment-66

  56. adrien
    fuck off you bum-sucking homo and stop putting your graffiti over my cuz’s place

  57. Thats just ridiculous. Kirrchner is an idiot. A real twit. I’ve forgotten more about monetary economics than that imbecile will ever know. Nothing could be more idiotic than the above statement. Its coming from a position of total ignorance.

    He’s basically saying that socialist money, using compulsion cash, in an environment outright bank subsidisation and thousands of cartelisation regulations, well thats just the same as free enterprise.’

    What a retard.

    What an idiot.

  58. You are such a bullshit-artist Z. You claimed it was a good article. I go to the article and there is nothing but stupid assertions. All of them wrong. So I go to the linked article. Same thing. No beef. No meat to the argument. Just conclusions. Just assertions. No reasoning. And every assertion wrong. What an incredible know-nothing idiot. And not only you.

  59. Stop lying. He doesn’t write great pieces. He’s ignorant and he’s an idiot. At least Selgin clearly explains his case and so its easy to show where he went off the beam. Kirchner is incapable of economic thought or reasoning. Were I to follow your link I would not find any sort of valid economnic reasoning at all.

    Whereas Selgin does it best and lays things out in a systematic fashion.

  60. I don’t mind the links but if you are going to lie then the links get wiped with the lie.

    For someone to say honestly : “This is a great link” it means they understand the reasoning and could likely make the case in their own words AND they think its a great link.

    But you idiots (Z and Soon) are only interested in taking tribal positions like some sort of clique of Baboons. So the link is fine but the lying is not.

    Steve Kirchner is too stupid to write any good articles. And if you ever find differently be sure to link the mystery great article when you should find it. I’ll google-check for plagiarism since Kirchner is not capable of writing anything good on economics.

  61. Of course I disagree with subsidising cars. Even you suggesting some doubt in the matter is a lie. As you know. All subsidies of any sort disgust me. No lies on my site Jason Soon.

    When will these Jacobins ever learn.

  62. Are they ALL monetary illiterates at the CIS? Is that some sort of pre-requisite.

  63. “If you don’t understand that a bank deposit is a loan to the bank then you will never escape the FRB argument. If somebody wants to open a currency store then well and good.”

    More lies. Cartelization regulations and subsidies ensure that fractional reserve is an enforced monopoly.

  64. Obama’s birth certificate:

  65. An obvious fake without a certificate number and in no way presented to the authorities.

    Its not even a birth certificate. Its a “certification of live birth”. And a fake one at that. The borders of a real one are darker. Entirely different typeface of the numbers on the bottom left-hand corner. This despite the fact that the revision number is the same as the one used to make the comparison. So its not a question of two different certificate types at two different times. Vertical bar of the fake, on the bottom left-hand corner goes down too far. Pressure seal is absent from the Obama fake. Embossed seal is missing from the fake. But on a real one its a pressure seal that a blind man could feel and that can be seen from the back.

    On the fake Barracks fathers race is described as African. On a real certificate in 1961 the term would have been negro.

  66. Mr Bird,

    While I would dearly love the American Mugabe to turn out to be Kenyan and be disqualified, I find it difficult to imagine that the powerful marxist forces who organized this sham election and pull the strings behind Mr Obama would have made such and elementary mistake as to have chosen someone who would be disqualified so easily. Sadly I believe the truth is that the American Mugabe is technically elligible to be president.

    There is no way that the communists would have allowed themselves to go so far and falter because of this. The political havoc created by the revealing of his false citizenship will be nothing compared to the sinister influence he can wield in power. They would not shoot so low.

  67. Well sometimes these satanic forces are just one or two pigs in a poke. The big risk-taking Bill Ayers, helping a talented kid write his memoirs and maybe helping him in other ways. Not all conspiracies have to be of the big fat kind.

  68. You know when you kick these things off you don’t necessarily expect your man to win. Bad bastards make whopping mistakes just like everyone else.

  69. Mr Bird,

    I thought on the other thread you were suggesting that Ayers was regime backed?

    This would seem likely. I suspect the ex-KGB types who now control the Kremlin. I suspect they have revived a sleeper project from the depths of the cold war.

  70. You can make the links Jason. But don’t be bullshitting people that Kirchner writes good articles. Who are you to judge in any case? If you want to make the link lets have some commentary and some reasoning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Right. But at the same time how much assistance would people get? A small accommodation here or there? A connection to someone who can deliver dodgy paperwork? A little bit of money? Who knows how generous such assistance might be?

    Like if a local terrorist group was getting a bit of assistance from Cuba…. its not necessarily the case that this would be all that extensive.

  71. Z. Your bet has no relation to your theory. You are so fucking dumb that you’ve constructed a bet that doesn’t relate to the theory you are propounding. I’m getting real sick of this leftist idea of bogus bets as a substitute for evidence. The one bet that you proposed that was its own evidence I took you up on it. But for fucksakes man. Don’t try and outdo James Annan in idiocy. Its evidence we want. Not bets.

  72. Once again. If you are not interested in a serious bet DON’T SUGGEST A BET AT ALL.

    Look at how much you filibustered over the old one.

    I’ve already won the money on this one in advance. Since Obama wouldn’t have faked a certificate if he had a proper one. The Hawaiains and Kenyans wouldn’t have closed down their act to investigation. And so any further certificate obviously has to be seen as a new and improved fake.

  73. So pay up or suggest another bet. The evidence is all in and cannot be altered retrospectively through the act of betting. No-one on his way to the white house would fake a certificate if he could get hold of a real one.

  74. Mr Bird,

    While I understand the need to keep the site clean from being overrun by the stupidity of Soon, Cambria, Hill, Edney, Z etc. It might be good just to keep a small sample of their idiocy on display carefully surrounded by your own wise words of course so it doesn’t mislead anyone. I find it difficult to follow what has gone on sometimes on threads like the above when I arrive after all the stupidity has been erased.

  75. Yes you are right. Good observation. I have been overloaded with this sort of stupidity and the first instinct is to wipe it out just as soon as it pops up.

    Also I have to go back and wipe a lot of my comments out when they are no longer serving any purpose.

  76. Kirchner has another piece today on monetary economics. what do you think?
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24638099-7583,00.html

  77. Right I retrieved it so lets go through it.

  78. Here we go:

    “IN December 1996, then US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan famously mused: “How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values?”

    Greenspan suggested the following answer to his own question: “We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability.”

    Yes well thats all wrong from Alan. Financial assets are often real things and are part of investment decisions. So investment decisions are distorted by the inflated prices of these things. And of course the crash is what follows the inflated prices of these items.

    Steve says:
    “… Indeed, the sharp stock market break of 1987 had few negative consequences for the economy……”

    Well thats when the correction happens. Its not the crash that distorts the economy. Its the inflation prior to that.

    Alan sez:

    “But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in asset prices must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy.”

    Well yes if you are flying blind in the first place. You need to look at these things to give you a bit of a clue.

    Steve sez:

    “Greenspan’s view was that monetary policy should take account of the implications of asset prices for the real economy and consumer price inflation, but that asset prices per se should not be a target forpolicymakers.”

    rrrriiiiggggghhhhttt

    “In the context of the present global financial crisis, this orthodoxy is being questioned, not least by central bankers. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said last month that “the last decade has shown that bursting bubbles can be an extraordinarily dangerous and costly phenomenon for the economy, and there is no doubt that as we emerge from the financial crisis, we will all be looking at that issue and what can be done about it”.

    Yes well Ben doesn’t know shit from shinola. The key is not to let the bubble get started. When the bubble bursts a lot of rich people and many others have debts that they cannot pay off. So they go to government for help. Your assets are cut in half. And suddenly your debts, without new money creation, are twice as hard to pay off. Of course you are unhappy about it. The main thing is to maintain gross domestic revenue and get debts down by both paying them off, savings, and bankruptcy. Some Austrians don’t believe in maintaining gross domestic revenue. But I think thats going too far. Since these days the money supply can disappear right up its own ass.

    “In Australia, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens recently asked “whether something can and should be done to dampen the profound cycles in financial behaviour, with associated swings in asset prices and credit, given the damage they can potentially do to an economy”. Stevens noted the view that “an effective response against the financial cycles almost certainly involves monetary policy”, and that “I sense now that among many thoughtful people this question is once again up for discussion.”

    Well there is an easy answer for that. Phase out of fractional reserve and stay in the growth-deflation range.

    “Bernanke and Stevens stopped short of arguing that monetary policy should explicitly target asset prices, but the fact that the question is even being broached is potentially a seismic shift for modern central banking.”

    Yeah they are pretty slow these people.

    “There are two great ironies underpinning this apparent shift in sentiment in response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

    First, an attempt by the Fed to manage stock prices was in fact the cause of the Great Depression.”

    Well thats a bit of a bloody stretch. No we can’t go with that. I know the story. The quote about giving the market a shot of whiskey or some such. But thats not the deal. The situation becomes unstable when the ratio of ponzi-money to cash-money gets to high. So he’s not even close on this matter.

    “Second, Bernanke, more than any other contemporary scholar, has highlighted the dangers of using monetary policy to manage asset prices.”

    Well one would hope that they weren’t specifically going to try and manage asset prices. He seems to be careening from one absolutist possibility to another.

    “In 2002, prior to becoming Fed chairman, Bernanke gave a speech titled Asset “Bubbles” and Monetary Policy. Bernanke noted that “the correct interpretation of the 1920s is not the popular one: that the stock market got overvalued, crashed and caused a Great Depression. The true story is that monetary policy tried overzealously to stop the rise in stock prices.”

    Well thats not right either. The distortion comes during the inflation. Then the collapse happens. If not for ponzi-money the correction would be totally healthy. But once the ponzi-money dissapears the correction is too strong. Hence the cash-money ought be injected to overcome this but not to end the recession outright, otherwise the distortions cannot be fixed.

    ” But the main effect of the tight monetary policy was to slow the economy. The slowing economy, together with rising interest rates, was in turn a major factor in precipitating the stock market crash”.

    rrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhttt

    “The singular cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s, in Bernanke’s view, was that the Federal Reserve fell under “the control of a coterie of bubble poppers”.

    Yes well this is just silly. Its true that they didn’t respond quickly enough once the ponzi-money started collapsing. But the problem begins with the bubble. Not at that point where the bubble was popped. The bubble ought to be popped early. Before it starts. It ought never get started.

    “Bernanke was merely reaffirming a well-established consensus among economists, ranging all the way from John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman.”

    All the music from Country to Western. Why is Kirchner even mentioning Keynes? A know-nothing and monetary crank.

    “In his A Treatise on Money, Keynes said: “I attribute the slump of 1930 primarily to the deterrent effects on investment of the long period of dear money which preceded the stock market collapse and only secondarily to the collapse itself.”

    So the inflationary period is ignored.

    “Friedman’s 1963 A Monetary History of the United States also laid blame for the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Fed and its attempt to become “an arbiter of security speculation or values”.

    Sadly Friedman plays down the importance of the prior inflation also.

    “The US Fed’s attempts at managing asset prices in the late 1920s were mirrored in Germany, where Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht feared that capital was being diverted from “productive uses” into a Borsenblase, or stock bubble. Schacht’s view was that “nothing better could happen to us than it collapses”. The subsequent Reichsbank-led credit tightening precipitated the Black Friday crash in Berlin’s stock market on May 13, 1927.”

    SEE THE ANALYSIS IS NO GOOD. Because he dives on this phrase “managing asset prices” and he is careless in just what he means by that. So he’s confused himself. And he’s lost the plot even before he gets started. His initial quote of Greenspan had nothing to do with MANAGING aggressively asset prices.

    He has no sense of what the default behaviour of the market would be sans ponzi-money. Unless you can imagine how things would be with 100% backing and constant GDR its impossible to look at what the effects of various changes would be.

    “The subsequent economic downturn was a major factor in the demise of the Weimar Republic, with well-known consequences for Germany and the rest of the world.”

    So he fixates on this “managing asset prices” mantra. And he just oversimplifies what happened in Weimar what with the printing presses running hot around the clock.

    “The US economist John Taylor developed a rule that benchmarks the stance of monetary policy with respect to consumer price inflation and the level of real economic activity. According to Taylor’s rule, US monetary policy was too easy between 2003 and 2006.”

    Taylors rule is arbitrary. Its all foolishness. Since its about wagging the dog with its tail. More silliness.

    “The Fed’s main concern between 2001 and 2003 was pre-empting the risk of consumer price deflation, which it rightly saw as a larger danger to the US economy than the emerging boom in housing and house prices.”

    Absolute rubbish. There is not problem with consumer price deflation. This is idiocy. The problem comes when business-to-business spending collapses.

    “If the Fed made a mistake, it was in not following the policy benchmarks established by Taylor. ”

    True but not powerfully important.

    “If the Fed is at all implicated in the current problems in financial markets, it is because of its failure to consistently target actual consumer price inflation, rather than any failure to manage asset price inflation.”

    More stupidity. Consumer prices ought to be ignored.

    “The lesson from historical episodes, as well as the present crisis, is that monetary policy needs to be more rule-bound, not more discretionary. History shows that a discretionary monetary policy that targets asset prices leads to economic and social misery on a scale far worse than anything we have seen in the present crisis.”

    You only need rule-bound policy if you allow fractional reserve. Since it makes spending unstable. But if you have to continue with fractional reserve for religious or crony-reasons Taylors rule ought to be thrown out and replaced with rules to do with stabilising Gross domestic revenue or allowing it to grow very slowly in nominal terms.

    If you AREN’T going to do that go with asset prices. Make sure they never get high in the first place. Then they don’t have to crash. Its outright IRRATIONAL to base things on consumer prices. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s twisted history and he’s arbitrarily showed up each time at the point of the crash. Not earlier prior to the inflation starting.

    “Stephen Kirchner, research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, will speak tonight at the CIS’ CrisisCommentary.”

    Lets hope no-ones listening.

  79. Well it’s always fun to go back and see how correct Graeme was.

    Did all hell break loose as predicted? No. Why? Because Graeme misreported that Souter had demanded the birth certificate. Of course no such demand was made, and the story was a complete fake.

    RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE SOUTER WAS COMPLETELY GUTLESS ON THIS SCORE. TOO FUCKING UNRIGHTEOUS TO EVEN SO MUCH AS ASK FOR A LOOK AT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Thats what it looks like. What I argued, once Edney picked me up on it, is that Edney couldn’t possibly know that Souter wouldn’t have informally asked to see it.

    Still enough time has passed that it looks like Souter really is that much of a gutless jerk and if violence breaks out in America after the triple-digit inflation arrives then he may live to regret trashing the traditions which keep a big country safe, free and viable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: