‘Social issues’ are related to liberty and limited gov’t!

By Anthony Horvath
© 2010

Apparently, a letter has been written to GOP leaders by conservative homosexuals and some tea-party activists requesting that the GOP lay off its traditional pro-life stance. That would be horrible for many reasons. One reason: In actuality, de-emphasizing life issues is a threat to conservative notions about limited government and individual liberty.

The very first thing that has to be made clear is that those in the culture of death themselves strongly believe that social issues and economic issues are linked. The pro-death camp is perfectly able to present their “social issues” in economic terms. Not only are they able, but they are happy to do so.

A brief glance at history reveals this to be utterly obvious and conclusively true. To take one prominent example, the eugenics movement was very concerned about improving the race, but it was more than that. Activists’ position on these “social issues” was closely connected to the economic realities on the ground as they perceived them, as this quote from Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) will quickly corroborate:

The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of their small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. … The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community, when we become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race; when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born. [“Pivot of Civilization,” page 99-100]

Continue reading »


Anthony Horvath is the executive director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. He speaks often on pro-life issues and his ministry hosts an online apologetics conference dedicated to the defense of the family through the arts.

We are being punished for being us

by Don Hank

America’s attention is now on airport strip searches. Many are sitting this debate out because they have been convinced by government that these searches are somehow keeping us safe.

But there is at least one web site dedicated to ending these strip searches and the porn cameras:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=228133

The website says, “We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history.

Clearly, in addition to avoiding offending Muslims by forcing all passengers to submit to search or porn shots, these new policies from Homeland Security are about punishing patriotic and traditional Americans for their mistrust of Islam. Never forget Janet Napolitano’s memo to police forces throughout the US warning of “rightwing” terrorists, defined as anyone who opposes the regime and is suspicious of big government (80% of us according to the latest polls). In typical leftist fashion, it turned everything on its head. We are actually threatened by Islam, but the ones who pay the price are ordinary Americans. They are kind of rubbing our noses in our own phobia of Islam without doing a THING to help. Look what happened at Ft. Hood:

Here is one typical newspaper account:

Twelve people were killed and 31 wounded yesterday when a US soldier went on a rampage at Fort Hood military base in Texas before he himself was shot by a policewoman.

My, how clever of these progressive journalists. It is NOT a Muslim fanatic on a Jihad. It is a US soldier.

Subliminal message: beware of US soldiers. They are potential psychos.

The same psychological tricks are being played at the airports.

The latest government subterfuge, with strip searches and nudie pics of passengers suggest that we are threatened NOT by jihadists but by ordinary American passengers.

It is an in-your-face message delivered poignantly to every air passenger, and it says:

You Christians are no better than the Muslims you fear and you have no more rights than they do, so there! What are ya gonna do about it?

Thus an important part of the strategy is revenge against us Bible-clinging and gun-clinging Americans. They are diverting our attention from the truth and punishing us at the same time.

How dare we fear the enemy and how dare we call him the enemy?

We are the enemy. So says the government that less than 20% of us trust (but that we keep voting for).

copyright© 2010

Supranationalism leads to war

by Don Hank

Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, is still propagating an ancient myth, the house of cards on which the EU’s acceptance by the masses is based. He recently trotted out the old platitude once more:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egotism, egotism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to war.

If Europeans ever see through this thinly veiled propaganda, they will throw off the yoke of the EU – including the failed “Euro Zone” – that binds and gradually impoverishes them. More and more Europeans are waking up to the fact that, at variance with Rompuy’s pronouncement, neither fear nor egotism, nor nationalism lead to war.

Far from egotism, it is in fact a selfless obedience to ideals expressed by ambitious men portraying themselves as solicitous of their subjects that leads young men to put their lives on the line in battle.

Further, it is not fear but rather misplaced trust that leads to war. Neville Chamberlain foolishly trusted Hitler, signing a non-aggression pact and telling his countrymen not to fear Hitler.

And it was trust in the Soviet Union that led Churchill and FDR to entrust the administration of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, in turn leading to the Cold War and the military occupation of those nations and to violent invasions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union had adopted as its slogan: “Proletarians of the world unite!” (they did not say “proletarians of Russia”) and as its anthem the stirring antithesis of a national anthem titled “L’Internationale.”  

American nationalist Ronald Reagan played the key role in ending this warlike foreign domination.

As for nationalism, if the French revolutionaries had been nationalists, they would not have chosen a young Corsican to lead them.

Further, if Bonaparte had been a nationalist, as he was in his youth when he hated the French, it would never have occurred to him to lead that nation. Nor would he have married an Austrian woman. The fact is, the truly nationalistic French were the pre-revolution French whose loyalty was to the Bourbons – a family whom the young Bonaparte hated. It was not until Napoleon saw the French overthrow their nobility that he cast his lot with the revolution and helped them defeat the rest of Europe – not in the name of France but in the name of the revolution, which he saw as an international — and specifically, a supranational — ideal, which had in fact been shaped by not only French but also German, Italian, American and British thinkers.

For the French themselves, it was also this revolutionary idea, a longing for a borderless Europe united by the revolution, that united them around Napoleon and lured them into the most deadly wars mankind had ever known.

Far from causing the Napoleonic wars, the nationalists of the day – the Prussians, the Russians, the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Italians and the British – each individually solicitous of their own individual nations’ safety and welfare – resisted Bonaparte, ended the wars and made Europe safe once more.

Ah, but what about Hitler, you say?

If WW II had been between Hitler on the one hand and the Allies on the other, a case could have been made for nationalism as the primary motive for the war. However, except for Germany, none of the Axis powers or collaborators – from the Japanese to the Mufti and Franco to the Italians – was fighting to further the cause of the Vaterland. None of the nations that sympathized with Hitler (including Russia at the beginning of Hitler’s reign) would ever have agreed to adopt German customs, teach German in their schools and subjugate their people to the German government.

The war Europeans see brewing with Islam on their streets is born of the same old borderless, supranationalist ideology, with EU zealots ramming unlimited immigration down their throats to enforce it. The war that many foresee occurring between Americans and millions of illegal immigrants including a disproportionate number of violent criminals and drug lords, is another example of violence ascribed to the top-down assertion of a supranational ideal that is antithetical to nationalism.

Today’s main enemy is in fact anti-nationalism, or what the Germans teasingly call Multikulti, which is warping our cultures, values and Western civilization itself and bringing Westerners into increasingly violent conflict with their Islamic “guests” who refuse to integrate.

The startling fact of the matter is that, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary from Western media, universities, churches and schools (and in Europe, from officialdom), nationalism itself has never led to a single major modern war. If the Germans had been more nationalistic, they would never have let an Austrian take over their country. It was a lack of confidence in their true roots in the form of Christianity (the pernicious belief that Christianity causes wars) — that misled Germany. Since the 1800s, German theologians had taught a perverted gospel teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German mercenary. Today, there is a pervasive myth that Christianity – which in fact opposed Soviet aggression and Hitler’s violence – causes wars. Anti-Christian propaganda was actually heavily involved in the major conflicts of the 20th century.

Clearly, far from nationalism, the seeds from which the very deadliest of modern wars sprang are the ideology of supranationalism, i.e., the foisting of a one-world government on a grassroots who reject the idea, and the eradication of traditional Christian values and beliefs in favor of Marxist dogma.

The story of modern war is the story of supranationalist tyrants invading the territory of peaceful nationalists. The European grassroots witnessed this history with their own eyes.

When will they learn to interpret it with those same eyes, and not through the eyes of elitist tyrants with an obvious agenda?

This just in from a reader (looks like “Multikulti” is on its way out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o&feature=player_embedded

And half of UK citizens want out of the EU:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210804/Why-I-believe-it-is-time-for-Britain-to-get-out-of-the-EU

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes-immorality-on-russia/1973.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/does-europe-have-a-future/1297.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/uk-elites-want-to-muzzle-christians/1177.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/nationalists-international/584.htm

Apologetics is the Answer to Everything

“Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and a national pro-life speaker. He is also the author of the Birth Pangs series.”

Read the rest >>

Some Christians will begin seeing red just from reading the title of this entry.  They will be angry and annoyed and may even jump up out of their seats.  Therefore, let me say it again:  apologetics is the answer to everything.

Whether it be the rapid decline of the Christian Church in America, the brisk acceptance of homosexual ‘marriage,’ the prevailing and deepening culture of death, the shallow spirituality of many of the Christians who actually remain in the Church- and certainly much of the lack of action- and many other issues can track back to nothing less than disobedience, for the Scriptures themselves command:  “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”  1 Peter 3:15 In the Greek, ‘answer’ is ‘apologia.’

I have italicized ‘the reason’ and ‘the hope’ as well.  Let us begin with what is referred to by ‘the hope.’  It is the hope of the resurrection, in particular.  And what might be ‘the reason’?  For the famous Bereans, it was convincing argument from the Scriptures- and for them the Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament.  (Acts 17:10-12).   Before King Agrippa was directed to the Scriptures, Paul pointed out that the events he was describing were “not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:26).  In Athens, Paul did not appeal to the Scriptures at all, but the hope was still front and center:  “He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”  (Acts 17:31).

And Jesus himself said, “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;  or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”  (John 14:11).  There is no question that the most important miracle that evidence would be provided on was the resurrection itself, which, if it did not happen- “we are false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead…. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”  1 Cor. 15

At its bottom, ‘apologetics’ is about communicating the hope that we have in the resurrection of the dead in a manner that we hope will be as persuasive as possible, not necessarily because people can be persuaded into faith, but that they may have no excuse.  Still, let it not be said that we give our ‘apologia’ only because obedience demands it.   From the New Testament it is evident that ‘apologia’ was integrated in one’s evangelism, and that this is how God chose to expand his kingdom.

Read the rest >>

9 Reasons why quantitative easing doesn’t work

from FedUpUSA

Buckle up and hold on – a new round of quantitative easing is here and things could start getting very ugly in the financial world over the coming months.  The truth is that many economists fear that an out of control Federal Reserve is “crossing the Rubicon” by announcing another wave of quantitative easing.  Have we now reached a point where the Federal Reserve is simply going to fire up the printing presses and shower massive wads of cash into the financial system whenever the U.S. economy is not growing fast enough?  If so, what does the mean for inflation, the stability of the world financial system and the future of the U.S. dollar?  The Fed says that the plan is to purchase $600 billion of U.S. Treasury securities by the middle of 2011.  In addition, the Federal Reserve has announced that it will be “reinvesting” an additional $250 billion to $300 billion from the proceeds of its mortgage portfolio in U.S. Treasury securities over the same time period.  So that is a total injection of about $900 billion.  Perhaps the Fed thought that number would sound a little less ominous than $1 trillion.  In any event, the Federal Reserve seems convinced that quantitative easing is going to work this time.  So should we believe the Federal Reserve?

The truth is that the Federal Reserve has tried this before.  In November 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a $600 billion quantitative easing program.  Four months later the Fed felt that even more cash was necessary, so they upped the total to $1.8 trillion.

So did quantitative easing work then?

No, not really.  It may have helped stabilize the economy in the short-term, but unemployment is still staggeringly high.  Monthly U.S. home sales continue to come in at close to record low levels.  Businesses are borrowing less money.  Individuals are borrowing less money.  Stores are closing left and right.

More:

http://fedupusa.org/2010/11/04/9-reasons-why-quantitative-easing-is-bad-for-the-u-s-economy/

Why Keynesian (Obama’s) economics doesn’t work

The Business Cycle: Krugman vs. Austrian Economic Theory

by Thomas E. Brewton

The Keynesian black-box doesn’t work, because the reality of independent actions by millions of individuals is ignored in order to achieve a simplistic representation of the economy in computer models.

Read More…
Keynesian economics, as expounded by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, is essentially a black box theory.  Stand on the outside of the economic box and dump into it endless baskets of inflationary fiat money, and things supposedly just happen automatically inside the black box to produce permanent prosperity and near zero unemployment. 

Read David Gordon’s commentary on THE HANGOVER THEORY by Paul Krugman.

Keynesians gloss over the human factors of uncertainty about keeping a job or losing a home, millions of different consumer preferences, and the chilling effect on businessmen of punitive government taxes and regulations, along with continual threats of more of the same.  Keynes’s feeble gesture in that direction was allowing that “animal spirits,” a kind of gambling instinct, played some role in businessmen’s decision processes. 

From the Keynesian perspective, businessmen don’t make rational decisions.  They, like the rest of the public, don’t know what is best for them.  As with Pavlov’s dogs, they are expected to exhibit a conditioned response to the stimuli administered by intellectual theorists.

Paul Krugman’s simplistic view of the economy, among other things, ignores the fact that government stimulus handouts usually are targeted by Congress to favored special-interest groups.  Most people without jobs and in danger of losing their homes will never receive a dime of the stimulus funds.  Private businesses, the engines of the economy, are not among the favored interest groups.

Keynesian theory ignores the fact that money is not real wealth.  Economic well being and improved living conditions can come only from increased production of goods and services that people freely choose.  Phony money earmarked for green jobs, wastefully expensive battery-powered automobiles, and environmental scams such as ethanol won’t cut it.  Keynes himself set the tone, asserting that government expenditures on anything would rejuvenate the economy.  His suggestion: pay men to bury fiat paper money in bottles and pay other men to find the bottles and dig them up.

Increasing production, when businessmen perceive possibilities for profit in doing so, is the only real source of income for consumers.  Moreover, increased business payments to suppliers and workers is non-inflationary, because the volume of available goods and services rises as incomes increase.  Government stimulus spending is inflationary, because the money supply increases long before production increases.

If one takes Keynes literally, inflation is a good thing.  Think of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s assertion that the Fed seeks to promote inflation at approximately a 2% annual rate.  Add to it the forthcoming QE2, designed to raise the rate of inflation. 

Keynes acknowledged that deficit spending with fiat money, created by bookkeeping entries at the Federal Reserve banks, would have inflationary consequences.  But, he opined, workers and others wouldn’t notice its effects in the short run.  Having more fiat money via government handouts, with no increase in actual production of goods and services, would fool the public.  Believing that prosperity had returned, people would stop saving and paying down debt and would add to their debts to resume consumption spending at the pre-recession rate.

Consumer spending is touted by Keynesians as the be-all and end-all.  In their paradigm, spending on consumer goods alone has the economic pulling power to gain what Paul Krugman calls “traction.” Yes, consumer spending is about two thirds of cash flow in the economy, but only if you view it as an application of funds.  The underlying source of all that consumer spending is business production that necessitates payments to suppliers of materials and wages to workers.

Stimulus payments to consumers is analogous to dumping frosting onto a cake mix, before the ingredients have been mixed and baked.  All elements of the economy, from raw materials, to intermediate goods, to consumer goods, must return to a supply-demand balance before the economy can gain Krugman’s “traction.” That necessarily takes time, because mining companies and other producers of basic raw materials have time scales for increased output and employment that are very different from the time scales of intermediate goods producers and consumer goods manufacturers.

Deficit spending, ballooning Federal debt, and a Fed dumping money, along with the prospect of higher taxes and unknowable impacts of multifarious new regulations, breeds fear among business decision makers that impedes the re-balancing process.  In the 1930s, such actions under Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt prolonged what should have been a two-year recession into twelve years of Depression misery.  President Obama’s similar Keynesian policies are repeating the Depression mistakes, giving us a flattened economy, with unemployment projected to remain in the 9% (really 17%) range for several more years.

Despite Paul Krugman’s assertions, Austrian economists don’t advocate higher unemployment and deflation, nor do they want to punish credit profligacy. 

They simply want to eliminate the Federal Reserve’s ability to fund speculative booms with excessive easy money (low interest rates).  Since the end of World War I, shortly after the Federal Reserve came into being, every inflationary boom and recession has been preceded by the Fed’s pumping excessive reserves into the banking system.

Artificially easy money and low interest rates lead businessmen and consumers to believe that there is unlimited demand for products of the latest bubble element of the economy.  Without excessive money creation, from 1987 onwards, there would have been no dot.com boom-and-bust, and no housing bubble that corrupted the banking system.

Rather than unemployment, as Paul Krugman apparently believes, Austrians advocate price flexibility, including wages.  It is labor unions and their government supporters who indirectly promote higher unemployment.

Before the New Deal’s 1935 Wagner Act gave labor unions power to bludgeon employers, businesses were able to minimize layoffs by temporarily reducing wages to bring their costs into line with their reduced selling prices for goods.  Better for all workers to have lower pay temporarily than for many of them to lose their jobs.  Wage reductions spread the hit over the entire work force.

In the Depression, labor unions, with the full weight of the Federal government behind them, demanded higher wages in the face of high double-digit unemployment.  To compensate, huge numbers of non-union labor had to be laid off, leaving them, not with lower wages, but with no wages at all.  Our parents and grandparents paid for the extortionate power of labor unions with lowered living standards.

We see a repeat of this Marxist class warfare today in New York, California, and other strongholds of the Democrat/Socialist Party.  Public employee unions not only are unwilling to consider reductions in their gold-plated benefits packages to avert state bankruptcy.  They demand new wage and benefit raises at a time of high unemployment and skyrocketing taxes for everyone else.  Labor unions thus block job creation.

With regard to deflation, which Krugman ascribes to Austrians’ wish list, most prices naturally decline (unless artificially propped up by the government) when demand lessens or supply increases.  Demand lessens when big-employment industries like housing construction overbuild, and buyers no longer can support their bloated personal debt.  Demand lessens further when a bubble-bust causes banks to tighten credit for everyone, while they liquidate over-valued collateral on defaulted loans to bring balance sheet ratios back into line with regulatory requirements.  Prices are bound to decline (deflation to some extent, in some sectors of the economy) when excessive inventories (housing, for example) are dumped into the market by lenders.

Analogously, people have garage sales when they have accumulated too many things or things that they no longer need.  Nobody in his right mind would expect buyers to pay original retail prices.  If garage sellers want to clear out their stuff, they have to cut prices, often to a small fraction of original prices.  That’s deflation, yes, but it gets rid of the excess, puts some money into sellers’ pockets, and opens space for new purchases.

Austrians don’t advocate deflation.  They seek to forestall speculative bubbles that lead to deflationary recessions.

Austrians note the statistical fact, in every economic recession since the Fed’s legislative enactment in 1913, that financial bubbles and recessions have followed over-creation of money by the Fed and its support for excessive credit expansion by the banking industry.  Those bubbles are accompanied by price run-ups unsupported by underlying, long-term real demand.  They also note that long-lasting, non-inflationary business upswings can occur only when the Fed buts out and businesses are allowed to sink or swim while liquidating excess inventories and over-built production facilities. 

Only under Fed chairman Paul Volcker in the early 1980s has the Fed followed that policy to deal with a recession.  The result was a severe downturn for nearly two years, followed by sharply reduced inflation and one of the longest and strongest economic revivals in history.  Had the Fed under Volcker’s predecessors not flooded the economy with easy credit, the punishing rigors unleashed by Volcker would have been unnecessary.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

We’re not there yet, not even close

The election should make me happy, but it doesn’t

Anthony Horvath

The election results are still being processed but it can safely be said that the Republicans did a bang up job, taking some 65 additional seats in the House, and giving them control.   There were some great victories and some annoying losses, but on balance, I suppose I should be happy.

Well, from a near term point of view, I am happy.  A lot of terrible policies are not going to be implemented now and we might roll back some of the ridiculous ones that Obama managed to get through.   This will stave off certain unpleasantness, no doubt.  Perhaps I would feel better if the victories had been more impressive, on the scale of 65-70% versus 25-30%.   By and large, the spread was much narrower.  Where a million and a half people voted for the GOP a million and a quarter voted against him or her.

This means that there are still an awful lot of people who just don’t get it.  A lot of people.

Read more:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-election-should-make-me-happy-but-it-doesnt/1178.html

Speaking of how Americans don’t get it

Don Hank

The below-linked video shows what happens when you believe in Keynesian economics and you vote for it.

Notice how the interviewers and the interviewees avoid talking about how “stimulus” didn’t work and in fact just got the US in greater debt. Also note how the banks are blamed for not lending to businesses that are laying off employees and not selling product. The Obama voters STILL seem to think it’s the banks’ fault and not the government-backed Ponzi schemes that induced banks to give mortgages to people they knew wouldn’t pay back. (The CRA did not explicitly state that they had to go this far in issuing mortgages to the insolvent, but banks knew they had tacit permission and the greediest went for it, and then securitized and sold the mortgages knowing they were trash).

Even the tea party candidates didn’t talk much about this.

America will just keep sliding further and further into recession as long as no one wants to return to the adult banking and economic policies that made our country successful. These interviewees just look like they think the government let them down by not giving them enough, not forcing banks to lend more money to losing businesses, instead of by not getting out of the way and letting the free market work.

If they keep thinking like that, they are doomed.

That’s why I agree with Anthony Horvath’s assessment in his above-linked column. We weren’t allowed to hit bottom and we won’t figure it out until we do. We’ll just bounce back and forth between the two corrupt parties until the final collapse.

The video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009215n

The election results eclipsed this really bad news:

Don Hank

The Weimar Republic is on the way — famous for images of Germans taking their salaries to the bank in a wheelbarrow. The mark wasn’t worth much because the government just printed up money without anything of value to back it up.
The Fed is firing up the printing presses for QE-2 (quantitative easing — printing money with no backing, second time around). They will print 600 billion dollars with nothing to back it up. Create it out of thin air.
Here’s how that works out:
If America has, say, 500 billion dollars in circulation now and the government prints up 500 billion more with nothing to back it up (out of thin air), your dollar is eventually going to be worth 50 cents at the most. It loses value in proportion to the amount printed without backing. It is like letting the air out of your tires. Eventually you will be riding on the rims. And then what?
They tried the bailouts. That didn’t help the economy.
They tried the stimulus. That didn’t help the economy.
They tried the first printing (QE-1). That didn’t help the economy.
They’re out of ideas, so they’re trying MORE of the failed money printing. Does anyone think it will work this time?
George Soros, a Marxist who hates America, thinks we are too rich and influential and need a come-uppance, once said we should devalue our currency. He said that would be good. He didn’t mean for us, he meant it would be good for him and his obscenely rich buds who can double their money on us suckers.
Friends, as Beck says, this has never been tried before. It’s sort of like the atom bomb the first time it was tried. No one knew what to expect.
One thing we can’t expect is that our country will get stronger or more secure. And the dollar? Eventually, people will no longer want it. What is the dollar? The only thing that America manufactures any more.
Once it’s gone, that is the end of the ride.
Mad yet?
As Beck pointed out, the elections, which made you feel good, were a puppet show that took your mind off the underlying problems that none of the new congress people talked much about (probably because most don’t understand it):
Oh, I almost forgot to mention. The Weimar Republic didn’t last long. A poverty-stricken and abysmally ignorant populace replaced it with a regime known as the Third Reich. Pray, for delivrance, Folks!

Further reading on the Fed:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-jekyll-island-club-2010-11