Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘federal government’

During the 2015 Canadian federal election campaign, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, now Prime Minister, promised to borrow money (at interest) to pay for $60 billion in new infrastructure investments, as opposed to the NDP’s plan to balance the budget in their first year.

It was, and remains, a false frame of having to stay in a deficit and grow the debt by borrowing at interest for infrastructure investments when the government of Canada, all its provinces, and its municipalities, have the statutory authorization under the Bank of Canada Act to borrow money, effectively, or, in actuality, interest-free.

For instance, money can be borrowed effectively interest-free when the Bank of Canada issues bonds that are held by the government, and when it buys its own bonds, as the government of Canada is the sole shareholder of the bank, and all profits, after expenses, will go back to the government.

But even better, the federal government can borrow money, interest-free, by requesting interest-free money, to borrow for infrastructure investments today.

So, despite Trudeau seemingly one-upping the NDP in saying that he would invest in critical infrastructure by borrowing today, as opposed to putting off such investments in favour of immediately balancing the budget, he bought into the typical false frame that we have to borrow the money at interest as opposed to borrowing it interest-free.

Read Full Post »

On June 25, 2015, from the article, ‘Words no longer have meaning’: U.S. justice Scalia apoplectic on ‘pure applesauce’ Obamacare ruling, I pointed out Justice Scalia’s Obamacare wording hypocrisy, where he said that “words no longer have meaning” in reference to the majority 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether “the State” referred only to the 13 U.S. States that have set up health care exchanges, or whether it also includes the U.S. federal government.

Scalia’s hypocrisy relates to him saying that the Second Amendment pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms allows for reasonable restrictions when it clearly says that right “shall not be infringed.”

So who is he to claim that “words no longer have meaning” in the context of this case, and given the scathing nature of his dissenting opinion, I find it appropriate to call him out on his hypocrisy in this regard.

From an intensive layman’s study of the U.S. Constitution over the years, I tend to suspect he’s right with his decision in this case, as the words “the United States” is used in both the Constitution and the United States Code to refer to the U.S. federal government, whereas “States” are used to the several states.

Check out the comments section for my various comments and responses, including from someone who chastised me for allegedly using hyperbole in saying:

Scalia has no credibility in taking exception with the Court’s interpretation of words, since he misinterprets the Second Amendment, which clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” in saying that reasonable gun control limits are allowed.

For more on Justice Scalia, see my article, Charlie Rose’s interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read Full Post »

Byron DaleMonetary historian and reformer Byron Dale is scheduled to be my guest for the full two hours of Exposing Faux Capitalism, on December 22, 2013, from 8 to 10 PM EST.

I’m looking forward to speaking with him about his monetary reform efforts in Minnesota, to issue debt-free money in pursuit of legitimate public works projects at the state level, instead of state residents having to rely on bribes of their own money from the federal government.

Read Full Post »

Exposing Faux CapitalismOn the May 12, 2013 inaugural episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb on Truth Frequency Radio, I covered the following articles:

1) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin

2) The Constitution doesn’t insist on a gold or silver-backed currency

3) The Constitution doesn’t prohibit both the states and federal government from issuing fiat money

4) The gold double standard

5) A Money Power trap: Saying that private money creation is the problem

Read Full Post »

I was interviewed on May 7, 2013 by Dr. Stan Monteith on, how, for the first time in nearly 150 years, Canada is more free than the United States.

For some of the issues raised in my discussion, see my articles:

1) Once founded as a limited government whose powers are “few and defined”, the United States federal government is more centralized and expansive than Canada’s

2) Two major factors that keep Canada’s federal government on a tighter leash than that of the United States

3) Canada more economically free than the United States for the fourth year in a row: Heritage Foundation

4) Still think Canada is more socialist than the United States? The joke’s on you

5) Championed Canadian political success stories on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith

6) Canada the best place for business in 2011: Forbes

7) Vaccinations are not mandatory for students in Canada

Read Full Post »

The Fifteen Steps to Corporate FeudalismI arranged the July 31, 2012 interview with Dennis Marker, author of Fifteen Steps to Corporate Feudalism, on Dr. Stan Monteith’s Radio Liberty (available for a limited time).

Dr. Stan differed with Marker on several points, as I do, including his use of the word democracy instead of republic, and his support for federal government spending beyond its originalist constitutional boundaries.

Overall, Dr. Stan agreed with most of Marker’s points, as I do.

For my July 15, 2012 interview with Marker, see here.

I previously arranged interviews for Dr. Walter Block and Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Read Full Post »

The flags of Canada and the United States of A...

There are two major factors that keep Canada’s federal government on a tighter leash than that of the United States.

One is the French-speaking majority province of Quebec, which represents almost a quarter of Canada’s population.

While 50 U.S. states are divided and conquered to repeatedly hand over more of their exclusive constitutional authority, Canadians have a friend in Quebec, which is always sure to assert its interests, competency and exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect its unique cultural heritage within Canada.

Another major factor is the better representation in the House of Commons than in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the start of 2012, there was an elected representative for approximately every 110,500 Canadians and 719,300 Americans.

The United States has the second-lowest representation in its lower chamber in the world — less than Communist China, and second only to India.

These are two political reasons that I propose would have rendered Canada more free than the United States had it been proportionately attacked as the U.S. was on September 11, 2001.

With the 2008 financial crisis, some Representatives were getting 1000-to-1 calls against the bankster heist bill. If they had a representation factor like Canada’s, there would have undoubtedly been at least several Representatives who would’ve held firm to their original no vote and the bill may have failed to later pass the House in the form it did.

The U.S. Constitution allows up to one Representative for every 30,000 Americans, so there’s no need for the current level of representation, unless you’re a bankster or one of their agents.

It is the result of these two major factors, among others, that the United States federal government is now more centralized and expansive than Canada’s.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury