Smart Money

Freedom - What’s it worth to you?

Anything?

“I think we’re on the ragged edge, and this Austin thing is a clear warning shot across the bow,” says Doug Casey, reflecting on last week’s aerial suicide attack on a federal building in Texas housing IRS offices.

“When individuals start taking actions like this, it can change things. An army of one can sting, but what happens when you have 100,000 armies of one? Or a couple million? Just think of what would have happened back before World War II in Germany if each one of the millions of Jews and Gypsies and others the Nazis rounded up had fought back. The death camps were made possible by people who, although they had the capacity to act like wolves, acted like sheep.

“I’m not saying things will go that way in the U.S. But I do think there’s increasing resentment on the part of the average citizen against those who work for ‘The Man.’”

From The 5 Minute Forecast

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget.  The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You  and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.  In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority.  They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.  I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.  The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.  They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall..  No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..  The president can only propose a budget.  He cannot force the Congress to accept  it..

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.  Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi.  She is the leader of the majority party.  She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.  If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of  incompetence and irresponsibility.  I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.  When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in  IRAQ ,  it’s because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.  Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Dear Reader,

I would like to thank all those wonderful people who responded to our email and offered their opinion on what the phrase:

“In short the Plaintiff loaned money, in the form of a credit line, to Defendant.”

means.

Just for your reference, here’s how we analyzed the phrase and how we suggest you analysis statements from banks, collection agencies, and attorneys.

*************************************************

We found that the term:  “in the form of a credit line” caused people the most problems.

The easiest way to understand what something means is to substitute terms you know for terms you’re not sure of.  What if the Plaintiff had written:  “In short the Plaintiff loaned money, in the form of cocaine, to Defendant.”  Now its clearer.  You know Plaintiff didn’t really lend money, it lent cocaine.  That’s what Defendant would have actually gotten.

What if Plaintiff had written: “In short the Plaintiff loaned money, in the form of bull poop, to the Defendant.”  Again, much clearer.  You know Plaintiff didn’t really lend money, it lent bull poop.  That’s what the Defendant would have actually gotten.

The real proof is in the actual meanings of the words.  Relying on Defendant’s wonderful legal dictionary (Black’s Sixth Edition) we find that the word “form” means:  Antithesis of “substance.”  And “substance” means: Essence; the material or essential part of a thing, as distinguished from “form.”  That which is essential.  We have to rely on Webster for the definition of “Antithesis:”  1.    a contrast or opposition of thoughts, usually in two phrases, clauses, or sentences (Ex. You are going; I am staying)  2.  the second part of such an expression  3.  a contrast or opposition  4.  the exact opposite.

If we apply these definitions to Plaintiff’s phrase we end up with:   “In short the Plaintiff loaned money (substance), in the form of a credit line (the opposite of money, i.e. Credit or Debt), to Defendant.”  Either of which is illegal and renders Plaintiff’s agreement void and the instant court has no jurisdiction over a void contract.  It doesn’t exist.

*************************************************

Again, thanks for your help.  We really appreciate it.

Hope this helps in some way.

Jim

Dear Reader,

“When we dismiss people and ideas because the entire world doesn’t agree with them, we get to be right.  But we also get to stay empty inside.  By dismissing what could work, we dismiss our own growth.  We dismiss what’s possible.

“It doesn’t matter if the book you read and love is loved by anyone else.  It doesn’t matter if the teacher you admire is admired by anyone else.  It doesn’t matter if the healing method that worked for you doesn’t work for everyone else.

“What matters is you.  Your happiness.  Your health.  Your healing.  Your well-being.

“The truth is, no method works for everyone.  No teacher is right for everyone.  No book is going to inspire everyone.

“It all comes from within.  You are the first and final authority on your life.

“Rather than dismissing what is possible so that you can be right, what can accept so that you can grow?

“Dismissing is often a way to deflect the messages.  It’s a self-defense mechanism.  If you dismiss the book, idea, or method offered to you, you get to be right - and stay right where you are.

“Dr. Richard Gillett, writing in his wonderful book, Change Your Mind, Change Your World, states, ‘Disapproval is, surprisingly, the most reliable indication of a hidden belief system.  Quite often the only way disguised beliefs show themselves is through moments of emotional judgment or disapproval.’

All the successful people I know have accepted new tools into their lives over the years, spent thousands of dollars on personal growth and self-study, and never regretted any of it.

“The key is not dismissing, or disapproving, but digesting.

“For example, Nerissa and I had dinner with friends recently.  One friend was complaining about her job.  From her perspective, there was no way out of the misery she felt at her place of work.  Bad boss.  Bad hours.  Bad pay.  You name it, it was bad.

“Later, we were joined by other friends.  As ‘chance’ would have it, one of the new friends had connections where our complaining friend worked.  He gave our unhappy friend a name, and said he could help her resolve her issues.  He went on to say that this connection was a supervisor, head of many departments, and could probably resolve whatever was wrong.

“I was stunned.  So was Nerissa.  We were seeing magic happen right before your eyes.

“But what did our unhappy friend do with here new lead and new hope?

“She dismissed it.

“She didn’t write down the name or the number, or show any signs that something wonderful had just occured.

“Do you see how this works?”

Joe Vitale from The Attractor Factor

Dear Reader,

You have $1,000 to your name.  I want to borrow $10,000. How do you lend me the $10,000?

Jim

There is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year’s term was:  “Political Correctness.”

The winner wrote:

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

This guy has nailed it!

By Porter Stansberry

I’d like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment…

Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in — as long as it’s legal. But I can’t give you any capital — you have to come up with that on your own. And I won’t give you any labor — that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand that you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business.

That’s my role: to tell you what to do.

In return for telling you what to do, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits. You’re also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees, because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how.

Come on! You’re my partner. It’s only “fair.”

Now… after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out — to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is “fair” (some people never can afford to retire) is a different argument. As your partner, I’m happy for you to sell your share of the business whenever you’d like… because our agreement says that, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know. I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all the labor. That’s true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.

Oh. And one more thing…

Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees… I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth. After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you. We don’t think it’s “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for them.

All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur… if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hardworking people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you’ll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me. But it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it, because if you ever try to stiff me — or cheat me on any of my fees or rules — I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail. That’s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn’t it?

That’s the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

By Bob Bauman

During the Offshore Advantage Academy in Los Cabos last week where I spoke, both in my capacity as an attorney and as counsel to the Sovereign Society, I got a lot of questions about various offshore legal issues from our 330 attendees.

In one case, two of our attorney-speakers gave diametrically opposed opinions to an attendee on the same legal issue. I was asked to referee and the questioner went with my more conservative opinion.

Imagine how many differing opinions on the same question you could get from a court roomful of lawyers. Now up that roomful to one million…

According to the U.S. Department of State, in 2008 there were nearly one million lawyers in the United States…a number that represents over 70% of all the lawyers in the world. That total represents an increase of nearly 100% from the 1980 total of 542,000 and an incredible 150 % from the 1970 total of 355,000.

Sue and Be Sued

All these lawyers have been very busy.

According to the National Conference of State Courts, over 16.6 million civil cases entered the state court system in 2005, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Adjusting for population growth, the resulting aggregate rate of just over 5,500 cases for every 100,000 residents of the United States is nearly identical to the rate in 1996.

These dramatic numbers help to show how Americans traditionally believe a lawyer’s assistance is essential when faced with almost any kind of legal problem.

“After all,” a layman’s prudence suggests, “what does the average person know about the mysteries of the law?” That’s why attorneys are required to go to law school, isn’t it - so they can master a vast, complex field of knowledge?

The corollary fable is that all legal matters are “serious” by their very nature.

Thus, the conventional wisdom when a legal problem arises is, “Don’t try to do it yourself — get an attorney.” This theme has been repeated so often (usually by lawyers), it has been reduced to a modern aphorism, “One who acts as his or her own attorney has a fool for a client.”

All this “get-a-lawyer” propaganda is the product of a tacit conspiracy - a quietly organized facade constructed to fool the gullible and impress the uninformed.

Lawyers themselves are responsible for this conspiracy. Collectively they have hidden behind a legal magic curtain, protecting their interests by making “The Law” seem mysterious and beyond the comprehension of mere non-attorney mortals.

As an attorney for the past 44 years, I know many situations can have serious legal impact on your life - so serious that the best course of action is to retain a qualified attorney. If you think you need a lawyer, get referrals from trusted acquaintances, check Internet or the yellow pages of your phone book under “Lawyer Referral Services,” or contact the office of your state or local bar association which are also found on the Internet.

The Truth About “DIY” When it Comes to Lawyers…

In America, we have one of the best legal systems in the world. Yet, if you’re like most people, you’re overwhelmed and intimidated by that system.

You may have been indoctrinated to believe that there’s no way you can deal with the complexities of this system by yourself, so you don’t even try. You feel helpless – and you resent the “fact” that you have to hire a high-priced lawyer every time you need to sign a simple piece of paper.

Well, I don’t think that “get a lawyer” story is really true in every case.

You don’t have to have a law degree to handle most legal procedures. In fact, most of the legal stuff filling countless file cabinets and computer disks in any lawyer’s office reflects work done and decisions made not by the lawyer, but by the lawyer’s secretary, an office paralegal, or even a bright young student intern.

The vast majority of an attorney’s law practice consists of routine paperwork that any reasonably bright person can master in a short time. Computers loaded with specialized legal software programs now spit out hundreds of standard forms - wills, contracts, and premarital agreements, for example - into which the variables of each client’s name and relevant facts are inserted at appropriate places by a clerk.

You can do the same thing for yourself with a few inexpensive forms you can download from the Internet and you can research most legal issues using Google.

Mind you, I’m not saying you never need a lawyer, but I am saying, when faced with a legal matter that affects you, it is not at all foolish to find out whether you may be able to “do it yourself.”