On the show this week, one caller said he saw the results of Obama’s election accidentally pop up on TV before the election; another caller reprimanded me for not dismissing this out of hand. My answer? Stranger things have happened. The tweet above was sent by Newt Gingrich on November 13, 2015, more than two weeks before the San Bernardino attack on December 2, and there is no other relevant “California terrorist attack” to which Newt could have been referring. Happily, I got a little twitter support on this:

This little exchange was just the beginning. We hit on many different topics this week, so after the podcast links, I have put up links to some of the references I made…hope that’s useful. I also respond to comments, so feel free to start a conversation below…

Hour 1

Hour 2

Hour 3

Here’s what the Fed has done to your money:


Here is the call to action on GA HB941 –keep the power with the people and the grand jury


Here is the local resource for economic education


Here is the best national resource for economic education (IMO)


Here is the Portugal Drug Experiment


This is the journalist who lost suing Fox because the news doesn’t have to be true!


Here is the Fox expert who was clearly not vetted and spread total lies on Fox News


Here’s some stuff on Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland


Here are a few videos on election fraud


I’ll post the podcast as soon as I can…

Comments (5)

Finally caught up with this show and it was a good one! You presented a number of solid points that probably shook a few people up even if they never came close to waking up. One caller in particular, the Democrat, apparently had his cognitive dissonance offended by facts being aired previously but then demonstrated his own poor grip on reality! It was obvious that he would be immune to reasonable arguments as is true of so many people in general. Hopefully, that is not an affliction that I suffer from.

Thanks for responding about the Achilles Heel. “Consent of the Governed” is obviously important as they work so hard to maintain/manufacture it. At the same time, they’re working hard to destroy it and with the help of those already awake. It’d be great if a lack of consent was enough to defeat the system without crashing society.

Good on you for pushing the voting fraud topic. The callers seem to have missed/dismissed it for the most part. Is it too scary to contemplate?

I’ve just listened to Brion McClanahan’s lecture on the 10 Worst and 10 Best Presidents which was an eye opener. If you missed it, it’s available free from Tom Woods’ blog. Not to spoil it for anyone but he paints a disappointing picture of the Federal government ever since Washington’s first administration and by his reckoning, it’s been 100 years since a President lived up to his oath to defend the Constitution and, of course, these days they make no attempt to live by it.

However, even the best Presidents on that criteria were constantly having to fend off Congressional attempts to abuse power so really, the Union was doomed early on as the Federal government was and is a powerful ring to rule them all and irresistible to those desiring power.

The one last signing order in a reformed administration would be to declare a debt forgiveness for all amounts owed to the Fed and then shut it down. This should then be followed up by a Constitutional Convention to restore State and Individual Sovereignty and disband any notion of Federal power. That would be a useful move in the right direction, don’t you think?

In thinking about the American Experiment, I concluded that it lasted 8 years…as soon as Bankster Alexander Hamilton defeated defender of the Articles of Confederation Patrick Henry and replaced that foundational document with the Constitution, the Experiment was over.

I became an anarcho-capitalist when I realized that the most ideal conditions possible for a sovereign citizen-respecting self-limiting government actually existed at the founding of this country and still look at what it wrought…the biggest, most powerful government in human history.

This land was virgin territory (from the Europeans’ point of view anyway), rich in resources and self-sustaining, no privileged class locking up property for hundreds of years as in England, no warring neighbors threatening invasion, and most important, a body of men schooled in the Enlightenment who spent all their brain power on real thought, contemplation and discourse….they wanted to see if liberty and justice for all could result in a better country. They established the Articles of Confederation without giving the federal government the right to tax, and they genuinely reserved sovereignty to the states (you won’t see them getting their mandate from “we the people” ), but it lasted only eight years before inside and outside forces destroyed it and replaced it with a system that was designed to set up a strong centralized national government. Patrick Henry had much to say on the topic in the anti-federalist papers and his speech at the constitutional convention .

I’m offering a romantic simplification here which seems supported in Rohtbard’s gigantic Conceived in Liberty, however, Albert Jay Nock has an even grimmer view of our founding. He takes it a step further and says that from the very start it was a struggle between the privileged not against privilege – Henry representing the landed class who wanted local power and Hamilton representing the merchant class who wanted centralized power….given that the merchant class was rising it was inevitable they would win.

So I guess the choice is between Hopeless from Year 1 or Hopeless from Year 8. Either way, I think anarcho-capitalism is the system to beat.

In answer to your question…I would be in favor of restoring the Articles of Confederation, but a constitutional convention would surely result in a worse outcome than the Constitution of 1783 if left to its own devices – no chance we could do better than TJ & Patrick Henry. Aaaannnndddd…next time we hit the debt limit, $4T owed to the Fed should be repudiated and the Bank should be abolished a la Jackson….

You’re right but it won’t make you popular! ;o)

Unsurprisingly, the years of the Articles of Confederation seem to have dropped down the memory hole as I’ve never seen them described in any detail. I’ve read plenty to show that Federalists saw the potential in a national government but had to lie their way into it, packaging it up in nice rhetoric and giving written assurance that its intent was nothing to be feared. Once in place, they changed their tune on the “intent” of the Constitution, reinterpreting it to justify any desired act of tyranny and switching sides as it suited them.

One of the most blatant example of their two-faced standard is how they decided that if the Constitution didn’t specifically restrict the government from doing something, they could take it as implied but when it came to Individual rights, if it wasn’t specifically stated, then the right didn’t exist. Bastards and often murderous ones as well. What kind of foundation is that?

Okay, that makes me want to spit so I’ll take a break and go sailing in the cold!

Yes. The show page should have a link to the free course but I can’t see it. I’ll forward my link if the show doesn’t make it clear how to get it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.