Let the PIGS Get Slaughtered

Will all those PIGS in Europe get what they deserve? And if they do, should we care?
Sadly, the answers are, probably not. And yes, we should, because what happens there will have a significant impact on those of us here in the good ol’ USA.

First, who are these PIGS (sometimes written as PIIGS and occasionally even as PIIGSTY)? Basically, they are some of the socialist countries in Europe that have gotten their budgets caught in a wringer. They’re facing all sorts of financial problems at home. And unfortunately, their habit of spending money they don’t have is having bad consequences for them… and for us. If that sounds familiar, it should.

The acronym PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. You can add Ireland to the longer version; and Turkey and Yugoslavia to the longest one. Right now, all of the attention is on Greece, so let’s begin there.

And let’s start with a dirty little secret no one wants to admit: When Greece was admitted to the European Union (EU) a while back, everyone involved knew that Greek authorities lied about the fiscal situation in their country.

Let me repeat that, to make sure you understand: Greece didn’t come anywhere close to meeting the incredibly lax fiscal requirements to become a member of the EU. The powers-that-be in that socialist consortium wanted Greece in; the socialists in Athens who ran the country wanted Greece in; and all of the kept media in Europe wanted Greece in. So everyone agreed to keep silent about the actual facts. With a wink-wink and a nod-nod, Greece was accepted.

If there was anyone bold enough to say that this emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes, his remarks were drowned out by the litany of “hoorahs!” from all the people who were oh-so-eager to get Greece on board. You can’t build the socialist super-state of Europe, otherwise known as the European Union, without them, you know.

So what happened? Remember the old axiom, if you want more of a particular behavior, reward it. If you want less of something, punish it. (Pardon an aside here, while I note that it has been the official policy of the United States government for most of my lifetime to reward laziness and incompetence, and to punish hard work and success. Guess which one we’ve been getting more of. Any wonder we’re in the mess we are?)

But back to our favorite baklava makers. Greece’s admission to the EU meant that her citizens and her government could go on the greatest spending binge they’d ever seen. Grab it while you can, guys! The money is free, free, free! We’ll worry about paying the piper when the time comes. If we’re lucky, maybe we can do what our cousins in the U.S. have done and foist all the bills off on our grandchildren.

Sorry, guys. We can do it, but you can’t. The boss of our central bank, otherwise known as Helicopter Ben Bernanke, can print or borrow all the money he wants. Heck, last year alone he created more than $2 trillion out of thin air. And you know what? The world still stands in line to loan Uncle Sam all the money he needs.

But Greece isn’t the U.S. and the drachma isn’t the dollar. Your day of reckoning can’t be put off forever. In fact, it’s here now. Nobody wants to loan you money anymore.

As a member of the EU, Greece was required by law to keep any deficits to an absolute maximum of 3 percent of GDP. This year they’re running four times that amount, with a deficit totaling 12.7 percent of GDP. No wonder cautious lenders are charging them more than double what Germany must pay to borrow money. That’s what happens when your creditworthiness stinks—as our leaders in Washington may soon find out.

For the past week, the biggest question in the international financial community has been who will bail out Greece? I’m betting it will be Germany. The reason I say so is that German officials have officially denied that they will do it at least three times. When government officials are this adamant about not doing something, I know it’s almost a sure thing. (Who was it who said, “Never believe a government policy change until it’s been denied at least twice”?)

If Greece gets bailed out, you can count on seeing a lot more PIGS line up at the public trough. Remember, what this is really all about is building a socialist New World Order. That was the modus operandi behind the creation of the EU in the first place. It is why every participant country was required to abandon their own currency in favor of something called the Euro. And it is why the standard for admission to the EU keeps slipping lower and lower.

By the way, that is also why you can expect to see Barack Obama start arm-twisting the State Department and Congress to “come to the aid of our Greek friends.” We’ve got it; they don’t; and in BO’s curious worldview, that’s all the justification he needs for taking your money and giving it to others. “From each according to his ability” (that’s you and your hard-earned assets, my friend), “to each according to his needs.” Anybody recognize the quote?

Yes, Barack Obama honestly believes that someone else’s need—even someone you’ve never met, living half a world away, and guilty of the most profligate misuse of what little assets he had—is a legitimate claim on what you have. It’s called socialism, my friend. Get enough important people to support it and you can call it something that sounds a lot better—like international assistance, or maybe the New World Order.

I could go on for pages, but I think you get the point. Just in case you don’t, let me end this diatribe with a very interesting quotation that reveals exactly what our financial masters have in mind for us.

This one comes, believe it or not, from the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago. The editors gave Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and one of Washington’s ultimate Insiders, nearly 200 inches of prime editorial space to tell us dummies what is really going on. Here’s what the stalwart Keynesian had to say:

“Look at President Obama’s budget proposal, spending freeze, jobs bill, stimulus, tax hikes on upper-income individuals, and proposed deficit commission. Also take a look at the fees he wants to impose on the biggest banks and his proposed regulation of Wall Street. Look at his stalled trade agenda. Now, explain the big picture.

“If you’re about to write, ‘more taxes and more spending,’ you’re either not thinking hard enough or you’re a Republican running for office this November.’”

Or, Bob (do you mind if I call you Bob?), you could be a Straight Talk reader who sees through all of your eloquent BS. You may be smart as a whip. But you’re not so clever that we can’t spot the baited hook that comes next:

“To see the big picture, you need to keep your eye on three big things. The first is the extent of government spending needed to offset the continued reluctance of consumers and businesses to spend.”

To read the rest of this folderol, see the complete article in the Feb. 5 issue of the Journal. Somebody in the editorial section must have a pretty good sense of humor, because the piece right next to Reich’s ramblings had the headline, “Washington vs. ‘Common Sense.’”

I’m sure I’ll have more to say about all of this in subsequent columns because the news won’t be good, my friends. The people who make monetary policy in the EU, like the ones who control the purse strings here, believe they have been endowed by their creator with the unalienable right to take your money to spend on projects they want, but know you abhor.

Welcome to the Brave New World of the socialist utopians. All it will take to make it work is your freedom and your wealth. Forgive me for pointing out that Barack Obama and his progressive friends think that’s a very reasonable price to pay.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Dalai Lama Aide: Obama’s Meeting With Tibetan Leader A Sign Of America’s Strength

Dalai Lama aide: Obama's meeting with Tibetan leader a sign of America's strength The White House has announced that President Obama is meeting with Tibet’s exiled leader the Dalai Lama today, despite demands by China to cancel the talks.

China has warned the meeting will damage Beijing’s relationship with Washington as the communist nation accuses the Dalai Lama of pushing to free Tibet from Chinese rule, a claim he denies.

Obama’s decision not to meet with the disputed region’s spiritual leader last year created a setback for the Tibetan cause and was interpreted by some as a sign of American weakness as well as an opportunity for China to enhance pressure on other countries to cut their ties to the exiled government, said the Dalai Lama’s special envoy Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, quoted by The New York Times.

"Unfortunately it had definitely created setbacks for us on that score," he told the news provider, but added that "it is my hope that this meeting will help overcome these concerns."

Meanwhile, deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters that the U.S. considers Tibet part of China, but urged the Chinese to respect Tibet’s cultural and religious traditions.

Commentators suggest Obama is walking a fine line between his desire to promote the rights of Tibetans while cultivating good relations with China, whose support he needs to counter nuclear proliferation by North Korea and Iran, secure an agreement on climate change and deal with the global financial crisis.

Cheney Non-committal On Palin’s 2012 Qualifications

Cheney non-committal on Palin's 2012 qualifications Former vice president Dick Cheney has been a vocal political commentator in recent months, focusing mainly on criticizing the Obama administrations’ foreign and security policy. However, when asked what he thought about Sarah Palin’s suitability to run for president in 2012, Cheney sought to dodge the question.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week last Sunday, Cheney was asked if the former vice presidential candidate was qualified for the job. He responded by saying that he had not yet made a decision as to who he would support in two years.

"Whoever it is [he or she is] going to have to prove themselves capable of being president of the U.S. And those tests will come during the course of campaigns, obviously," he said, quoted by CNN.

Cheney added that all of the prospective candidates today still have work to do to persuade Americans that they are up to carrying out "the world’s toughest job."

Earlier this month the former governor of Alaska delivered the keynote speech at the first-ever Tea Party national convention in Nashville, Tenn. A day after the speech, Palin, who is a new Fox News commentator, revealed that she was receiving daily policy briefings from advisers, and hinted she might run for president in 2012.

Amy Bishop’s Shooting Spree May Renew Debate About Guns On Campus

Amy Bishop's shooting spree may renew debate about guns on campus Last Friday, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville shot and killed three colleagues, and wounded three others, in a rampage that has reignited the debate about the merit of the laws passed in several states, and pending in many more, that allow guns on America’s campuses.

Amy Bishop, whose history includes a 1986 shooting death of her brother, allegedly opened fire at a department faculty meeting. According to media reports, the Harvard-educated professor had previously expressed resentment over being denied tenure, although nothing suggested she was violent.

Bishop’s history has caused anger among relatives of the shooting victims who have been quoted by the media as asking why the university hired someone with her background.

The accident has also spurred Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus to issue a statement in which it says that "[it] shows once again that an angry individual with access to a deadly handgun can commit mass murder wherever people gather, in workplaces, shopping malls, churches, schools and universities."

The organization’s director Andy Pelosi said that the gun lobby’s push to allow students and faculty to carry weapons on campus in order to fend off similar attacks is a "mistaken wild west fantasy."

"Why does anyone think that untrained students or professors would be better able to stop a rampage shooting than trained security officers?" he asked.

Pelosi called on lawmakers in states with pending ‘guns on campus’ bills to withdraw such legislation.

The Federal Reserve Conspiracy by Antony C. Sutton

[pl_amazon_book_order src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=perslibedige-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0944379087&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr"]

In The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Antony C. Sutton has taken a complex subject and, with surgical precision, presented it in an easy-to-understand 115 pages.

“Since 1913 politicians and media have treated the Federal Reserve Bank as a kind of untouchable off limits semi-God… no one except certified crackpots and kooks criticizes the Fed. Conventional wisdom dictates that anyone who attacks the Federal Reserve System is doomed and Congressional investigation of the Fed would result in economic chaos and a disastrous plunge in the stock market,” Sutton writes.

Thus he begins to make his case that the Fed was created by bankers and their interests in order to create a money monopoly which enriched—and still enriches—an elite few and gives them complete control over the economic growth of the United States.

Sutton wrote this book in 1995—he died in 2002—yet it remains an excellent source for people interested in the conspiracy that resulted in the Federal Reserve.

Beginning with Alexander Hamilton’s efforts to establish a privately owned national bank in the European model, Sutton brings the reader through the history of the national bank movement in the U.S. He covers who was behind it and who opposed it, and why. Using their own words and writings, Sutton documents their motives and untangles the connections.

Sutton discusses the efforts by Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren and Abraham Lincoln to thwart the central bank crowd. And he covers the relentlessness of the elites as they work to institute a private central bank.

He also unearths a little-known document written by Clifford Roosevelt, a cousin to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which was a forerunner to Roosevelt’s new deal. That manifesto, The Science of Government, Founded on Natural Law, written in 1841, proposed a totalitarian government without individual rights and run by an elitist establishment. The book has been removed from the Library of Congress catalog and only two editions are known to exist.

Clifford Roosevelt was, of course, one of the elites, hailing from a long line of bankers and legislators. In addition to FDR, Clifford’s relatives included Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams and Van Buren. So it’s not surprising he would advocate a totalitarian government run by an elitist aristocracy.

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, written seven years later, contained many of the same themes as The Science of Government. Coincidentally, while writing his manifesto Marx was funded by a cabal of German and American bankers, and it espoused a 10-point plan to bring about the destruction of the middle class and establish control in the hands of the elite. Point No. 5 was the establishment of a central bank.

Finally, Sutton brings us to the secret meeting on Jekyl Island, Ga., in 1910, and the names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg and the large financial institutions Guaranty Trust, Bankers Trust, First National Bank and National City Bank.

From there he documents step-by-step the planning, plotting and conspiring that went on right on through to the passing of legislation establishing the Federal Reserve, including the grooming of Woodrow Wilson to be president so he could sign the legislation into law. He uses the conspirator’s own words to show the lengths they went to in order to conceal from the American public what they were doing.

To wrap up his book, Sutton writes:
“The Federal Reserve is a private monopoly of money credit created by Congress under highly questionable circumstances which is beholden to the Chairman of the Board and whose decision cannot be changed by Government or anyone else.

“A free society under the rule of law? The United States has quietly become a hostage to a handful of international bankers. And just dare any Congressman challenge Fed authority!”

As a 1979 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco job opening announcement for computer programmers proclaimed: “Some people think we’re a branch of the Government. We’re not. We’re the banks’ Bank.”

“This confirms our discussion in this book,” Sutton concludes.

Will Obama Nationalize U.S. Pensions?

Will President Barack Obama nationalize United States pensions? That was the serious question I proposed one year ago in my blog—and it’s time to ask that question again.

Why now? Because President Obama has proposed what one of our experts sees as the "first step in stealth nationalization and forced investment of our retirement benefits."

The bad news comes as part of a tax package said to be aimed at middle-income Americans that was revealed in Obama’s State of the Union speech, as reported by Business Week magazine.

Obama’s stealth proposal is billed by him as an "effort to increase retirement savings by requiring all businesses to offer automatic IRA accounts,” but it drew immediate opposition from U.S. small business associations. Obama claims the plan would let employees automatically enroll in direct-deposit retirement accounts and expand matching tax credits.

Dangerous First Step to Nationalization

But Larry C. Grossman, CFP, CIMA, managing director of Sovereign International Pension Services (no relation to Sovereign Society) and a member of our Sovereign Society Council of Experts, sees the Obama idea as a dangerous move.

Says Grossman, "If you read it closely you will see the heart of the proposal is the requirement to keep 10 percent of the funds in U.S. Treasuries. At the stroke of a pen the president has found a way to bolster the declining demand for Treasuries. I believe forcing retirement plans into U.S. government control is the next step."

This alarm was echoed by Ron Holland, editor of the Inner Circle Intelligence Report published by BFI Consulting AG, a Swiss financial advisory firm, and a long-time member of the Sovereign Society Council of Experts.

Says Holland, "I think the mandatory IRAs just proposed by Obama is the first step in stealth nationalization and forced investment of our retirement benefits to support the U.S. Treasury debt market."

Should you be worried about this latest radical Obama move?

There is an estimated $15 trillion worth of private retirement plans in the United States; $4 trillion in IRAs alone; this constitutes 35 percent of all private assets in America. That is what the Obama government is eyeing to help plug the multi-trillion dollar deficit in his big spending budget.

You could call this move Obama’s attempt to "pull an Argentina."

What’s “An Argentina?”

In October 2008, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner—a peronista—confiscated US$30 billion worth in that country’s 10 privately managed pension funds. This was presented as an emergency measure to meet her faltering government’s financing costs. The Argentine congress went along with this radical property grab of individual retirement accounts, 401Ks and the like.

Could this happen in America?

Grossman’s opinion, "There have been several different academic papers published which have given rise to rumors. At least one congressional hearing on nationalizing pensions has been held. It is difficult to decide in what form it would take if something like this occurred in the U.S. Many believe that if indeed this is approaching, the best way to protect your assets is to place your retirement funds offshore now."

Holland says, "I believe we must fight this proposal and similar plans or else the private retirement system and our retirement wealth will be history in a few short years." Ron has produced a special report on this radical grab entitled, The Obama Retirement Trap Has Started!

Act Now

In my opinion, adopting such a retirement confiscation policy would be another major blow to Americans’ confidence and to any chance of economic recovery. It would further devalue the dollar and it would destroy what little remains of the credibility of Obama and his socialist government.

Folks, I served in the U.S. Congress when Democrats were overwhelmingly in control. I’ve seen what happens when the Republicans are in charge, as well. Meaning simply, anything can happen—so hold on to your wallet… and your retirement account!

—Robert J. Bauman, JD

Biden Responds To Cheney’s Terrorism Remarks, Goes On The Offensive

Biden responds to Cheney's terrorism remarks, goes on the offensiveVice President Joe Biden struck back at Dick Cheney this week, stating that the former vice president is "factually and substantively wrong" regarding his criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the war against al-Qaida.

Earlier, in an interview with ABC’s This Week, Cheney blasted the president’s approach to national security, including his decision to try 9/11 suspects in civilian rather than military courts.

In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Biden said that the former vice president is ignoring the facts and is either "misinformed or misinforming."

"I don’t know where Dick Cheney has been," said Biden. "Look, it’s one thing again to criticize. It’s another thing to sort of rewrite history."

Cheney also lashed out at Biden personally, criticizing the former Delaware senator for publicly stating that the U.S. is unlikely to face another attack similar to 9/11 due to the current administration’s approach to terrorism.

"You don’t want the vice president of the U.S. running around saying, ‘Oh, it’s not likely to happen,’" said Cheney.

The former vice president also strongly defended waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique used against terrorist suspects during the Bush administration, but officially banned by President Obama.

Oregon Hijab Vote Stirs Controversy

Oregon hijab vote stirs controversy The Oregon House of Representatives has voted to remove an 87-year ban on teachers wearing religious attire such as an Islamic headscarf, or hijab. While Islamic organizations applauded the move, others have criticized it for its potential implications.

House Bill 3686 passed by 51-8, taking the state a step closer to removing the ban, subject to a vote by the senate. If both houses approve the legislation, religious clothing will be prohibited only in Nebraska and Pennsylvania.

Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the vote was a "victory for religious freedom in the workplace."

"When this legislation takes effect, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh teachers will no longer be forced to choose between their faith and their chosen profession," said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of CAIR’s Washington state chapter.

However, opponents of the law, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, have expressed concerns about the rights of students, especially elementary school pupils, to be free from "religious indoctrination," according to The Oregonian.

Similar debates continue throughout the Western world. For example, France banned students from wearing headscarves on university campuses, and there are plans to outlaw the full Islamic veil, or burqa, on the grounds that it infringes on women’s freedom and dignity.

The Internment of the Japanese Americans

This is a very black week in the history of a country that prides itself on protecting the rights of its citizens. On Feb. 19, 1942, more than 120,000 Americans lost theirs, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066.

The order directed the United States military to remove every person of Japanese ancestry from within 100 miles of the west coast of the U.S. The military then moved them to 10 “internment camps” and kept them there for the duration of World War II.

Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, who directed the operation, testified before Congress, “I don’t want any of them here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty…. We must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.” They even rounded up orphaned infants; Gen. DeWitt said his target was anyone “with one drop of Japanese blood.”

One of the country’s fiercest conservatives, J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), testified against the measure. But a famous liberal, California Governor (and later Supreme Court Chief Justice) Earl Warren defended the mass incarcerations. Hoover said the Japanese Americans posed no significant threat to the country’s security. Supporting his position is the fact that the government never charged a single detainee with spying for Japan, or doing anything else to support our wartime enemy.

In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal and detention of tens of thousands of Japanese, without permitting them any legal appeals or procedures. The court stated (in a ruling that has never been overturned) that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is “a pressing public concern.”

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation apologizing to detainees on behalf of the U.S. Government. And in 1990, some reparations were paid to some survivors of the camps. Can you say “too little, too late”?

—Chip Wood

Banker, Butcher, Spy: Who Our Government Bullies And Bribes to Make This Their Cashless Society

It was the girl with the dark hair. For a few seconds Winston was too paralyzed to move. Whether she was really an agent of the Thought Police, or simply an amateur spy actuated by officiousness, hardly mattered. It was enough that she was watching him.”
George Orwell, 1984

With just days to go and a congressional recess looming, lawmakers are scrambling to find a legislative solution to re-up government surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers that are expiring at the end of the month.

With national security shaping up to be a major issue this election cycle, both sides are under intense pressure to reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Already Senate Democratic leaders are moving toward including a one-year extension on the provisions in their jobs bill, which was expected to be introduced this week.

No one doubts that the world changed for the worse since 9/11. One way has been our own government’s suspicion and surveillance of the very people that elected it.

Of course Washington has been telling us for a decade that it has no choice, that it must spy on us for our own good. It is all part of the War on Terror.

It is worth noting that our government began spying on us in earnest a generation earlier. That time it was because of the War on Drugs.

* * * * 

It was a hot July day in 1990 and I needed a cold drink. The offices to the Myers’ newsletter were on the second floor the Old National Bank Building at the North Division Y on Division Street in Spokane, Wash. One of the perks of paying hefty rent in the new building was that the bank let us use their lunch room replete with cola and snack machines.

Moments after my quarters had plunked into the machine I had a cold can of Coca-Cola in my hands. On the way out of the lunch room I noticed a giant poster on the wall from the Department of the Treasury (see chart below).

Click on the image above to expand the view.

As you can see its pretense is to catch criminals involved in “narcotics trafficking.” See the mention on the bottom? It offers “substantial rewards for information leading to the seizure of currency and/or the arrest and conviction of individuals violating United States currency laws.”

In other words, beware of the kindly bank teller if you deal in cash for whatever reason. He or she has openly been bribed to spy for the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Department (IRS) and U.S. Customs to boot.

You can see that more than a decade before 9/11 our government was busying itself in spying on its citizens. And the biggest attack on our liberty isn’t on what kind of gun we can own, where we can smoke, or even what we search out on the Internet. It is the slow and insidious control of our currency. How much money we have, where we have it and how we move it has become a preoccupation of the Federal Government.

There was a time when there were $1,000 bills. That is no longer. A rapidly devaluing hundred dollar bill is the biggest unit of currency today (in 2010 a $100 bill has the purchasing power of a 1975 $20 bill).

Twenty five years ago you could buy and own U.S. Treasury bearer bonds. Unregistered, they avoided scores of red tape—they could be bought and sold literally overnight; or if necessary, kept in safe keeping away from prying eyes. They too are extinct.

There was a time when you could move money in and out of the country, no questions asked. You can’t do that anymore. For years anything over $10,000 going across the border must be reported.

Uncle Sam wants to know any transaction over $10,000. That law doesn’t just apply to banks or border agents. If you go into your Ford dealer tomorrow and plunk down $12,000 cash, it will be reported to the Feds. Not only that, but if you spend more than $10,000 cash at a car dealership within a year (bought two cars on two different occasions for $6,000 each), the dealer is responsible to report the total of both transactions. In effect, private business has been conscripted by the Federal Government to report on its customers. And the Federal Government’s heavy hand reaches beyond U.S. borders.

In the late 1990s I was driving from my home in Spokane to Calgary, Canada. At that time it was illegal to transport more than $10,000 currency out of the United States, but Canada had no such laws (that would come a few years later, no doubt under pressure from Washington). At the Kings Gate border in British Columbia the Canadian Customs Agent asked if I was carrying more than $10,000 cash.

“What do you care?” I asked.

This did not sit well with the young lady charged with protecting Canada.

“Are you going to tell me… or are we going to have to strip your car and your person?”

“The answer is no, but what I want to know is why are you asking me this? It is not against Canadian law for me to bring in any amount of currency, is it?”

“No,” she said, “it is not. But it is against U.S. law!”

To underscore what she was saying she pointed 75 yards to the U.S. Customs office welcoming southbound traffic.

“So what you are telling me is that you are not only a Canadian customs agent, but you are also acting at the behest of the United States government?”

I realized I was walking a razor thin line and in jeopardy of having my car torn apart. Fortunately she handed me my drivers license (the days before you had to have a passport) and without a word she motioned me to continue on my trip.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote to you about the War on Gold. What I have learned in the last few years is that our government is conducting a War on Cash. Washington despises cash because it is an instrument we can use to exercise our liberties without being monitored. Yet for non-criminals like you and me it is a disappearing tool. Fewer and fewer of us do business with currency any longer, leaving whatever commerce we have easily tracked and traced.

Yet just as criminals continue to have ready access to guns, they too have mountains of cash. There is almost $900 billion in circulation, four times the amount there was in 1990. Meanwhile there are only 300 million Americans. If the drug cartels and terrorists weren’t holding buckets of cash, every man, woman and child would have $3,000 stuffed in their pockets or mattresses. Even if you account for what the banks have on hand (which is surprisingly little), that is a ludicrous number.

Law abiding Americans are without the utility of cash and the inherent privacy it allows when conducting commerce. Yet the drug dealers and terrorists have stacks and stacks of currency on hand.

Today our government is able to track almost all of our transactions in this increasingly cashless and restricted society. Never mind the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. It seems to me that the real war is being conducted on the American people.