Posted by cabbagepatchkid on 04/02/09
Last updated 04/02/09

Allison Bricker's SMIAC REPORT should go down in history along side Patrick Henry's GIVE ME LIBERTY speech, Tom Paine's COMMON SENSE, and yes, Thomas Jefferson's DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!

http://restoretherepublic.com/pdf/SMIAC_Report.pdf

Posted 04/13/09 Allison Cedar Lake, IN

April 13th, 2009 Your praise of my report is quite unexpected and indeed most humbling. Thank you for your kind words and the subsequent repost here on Campaign for Liberty. Long Live the Republic, Allison Bricker

Posted by cabbagepatchkid on 04/02/09

Front - DISSENT IS NOT TERRORISM

Back - DISSENT IS AMERICAN

Posted by cabbagepatchkid on 02/08/09
Last updated 02/08/09

I'd like to tell you about what Bob Schulz and We the People are doing this year, in case you hadn't heard. I think this is really important. Bob is not a lawyer but he has been suing the government pro se for over twenty years. He is well educated, with an engineering degree and a business degree and most of the coursework for a Phd in public administration. He has worked for big business and government at high levels. He is very level headed and conscientious. He dropped out some time ago to sue them full time.

Recently he has changed his approach because after all those years of mostly being dismissed or ignored, he decided that it wasn't working. At some point, he focused on the little used last ten words of the First Amendment - "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." He found clear statements in the Magna Carta, in Jefferson's writings, and in the Continental Congress that support his position that the right to petition the government is a fundamental right, even the capstone right of the Constitution. Furthermore, those documents made it clear that the people have a fundamental right to withhold payments if the government refuses to respond. He sued the government to acknowledge a citizen's right under the First Amendment to redress of grievances and got it to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear this fundamental Constitutional case, even though the court has never interpreted the last ten words of the First Amendment.

Relying on his well-documented record of ignored and dismissed petitions of redress, he is now organizing a new Continental Congress for 2009. The process he has laid out is as follows. He has, with the aid of Constitutional scholars, drawn up seven petitions for redress of the following Constitutional grievances - violations of various Constitutional clauses in the war in Iraq, in the Federal Reserve, in illegal immigration, in gun control laws, in the Patriot Act, in the Income Tax, and in the North American Union. The first step is to collect massive numbers of signatures on these petitions.

The next step is to present them to each member of Congress and the President on the same day, in their home offices. They will be given forty days, per the Magna Carta, to respond. A Continental Congress is being organized now to meet after the forty days is up to discuss how to proceed if they do not respond. Delegates will be chosen from each state.

Bob Schulz lives in my region - upstate New York. I have been aware of his exploits in the courts from reading the local newspaper for the past twenty years. I believe he has laid out our best case for a peaceful and legal challenge to the pattern of Constitutional abuses of the government. Please read and sign the petitions, and get others to do the same.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/default.htm

Posted by cabbagepatchkid on 01/24/09

The assaults on our freedom are increasing in frequency and intensity. It is becoming overwhelming. In order to combat this affect we must be able to focus. The question is, focus on what? The corrupt money system is both the source of their energy and our lack of it. We must secure this supply line.

We have the upcoming ETF rallies and the petition drive for Ron Paul’s next bill to end the fed. In order for these efforts to be successful, we need large scale public involvement. Public involvement depends on public education. So the next question becomes, how do we educate the public? To solve this problem we must understand its challenges.

Significant obstacles arise when we try to discuss the Fed with the unitiated:

1. Our lack of credibility as competent monetary economists. We are asking people to believe a point of view that is radically different from the common understanding. This would be difficult even if we were educated economists, which most of us are not.
2. We have a conflict of interest. Before we can even discuss the Fed with most people, they have to understand the basic facts of the system. But since we have a strong opposition to the system, our statement of those facts is suspect. People need a neutral, or at least balanced, party to educate them to the facts, excluding opinion.
3. Individually, our own knowledge of the basic facts of the system is less than comprehensive. How many of us can really answer all of the inevitable questions that we are asked when discussing the operation of the Fed? When we can’t answer those questions, we lose people.
4. While the Fed system is understandable by the average citizen, it is complex and cannot be communicated in a conversation or even in a series of conversations. This subject should be a section of chapters in college Econ 101, which would utilize professional educational techniques. We cannot achieve the same quality of education unless we use those techniques as well. Well organized, well spoken, and documented videos are very helpful and should be part of such an educational effort, but are not enough by themselves.

The approach that best addresses these problems must first recognize the difference between fact and opinion. In this sense, a fact is not something that is true in some absolute sense where only God can be the final arbitrator. In argument, a fact is an idea that is not in dispute between the adversaries.  The facts concerning the essential function of the money-creating, money-destroying process of the Federal Reserve system are not in dispute between pro-fed and anti-fed adversaries. Since the question of whether that system is legitimate is in dispute between the adversaries, it is a matter of opinion, in terms of the debate. That is for the people to decide once they know the undisputed facts.

This is our strength because the undisputed facts are the very thing that average citizens, who are the judges in this debate, are not aware of. It is a basic premise of this movement that “If the people ever understood the Fed, they would revolt.” Since these facts are not in dispute, we can use pro-fed textbooks, pamphlets, and economists to make our case for us. This eliminates problem items 1 and 2 above. Neither our competence as economists nor our bias would be in question. And, when we focus on the undisputed facts, we allow people to form their own opinions without feeling pressure from us. Once they are educated to the facts, then we can discuss their opinions, and ours, as equally informed citizens.

The next logical question is what format or forum would utilize pro-fed materials and economists with professional educational techniques? Repetition is one of the most basic and important. But just repeating the same presentation isn’t particularly effective. People need to hear the same information through as many different senses as possible – through sight, sound and touch. The information from these different senses are stored in different parts of the brain. When information is specifically targeted to each, learning takes on more dimension, has more structure and more stability. Working models are an excellent way to understand complex mechanisms, because they involve all of the senses at once. Involving people in the process of building and operating the models adds even more dimension to the memory of it.

I propose that city or area groups meet and act out the money-creating, money-destroying, net-debt creating process of the Fed. For example, one or more participants would represent Congress by passing a bill to raise the debt limit for another round of spending. They would physically write out a treasury bill and sell it to another participant who would act as the Fed. The Fed would then create the money by writing a check to Congress to buy the T-note. Congress spends the money by depositing it in the accounts of vendors. The commercial banks would then create more money by making loans, using those deposits as reserve. That loan money would then be deposited in other banks, who would use it as reserve and create more money. The process would be followed to the end of the cycle. A Treasury accountant would keep track of how much money was created in total. Then the process would reverse as the loans are repaid, with interest. The debt that remains after the process would be calculated by the accountant, etc, etc. The first benefit from doing this will be to gain and cement in our minds a better understanding of the process for ourselves.

Once we have this model working to our own knowledge and satisfaction, we should issue a public challenge to local economists, like college instructors, to find fault with our model. I believe it will be possible to find one that would enjoy the challenge. If not, we can stand by textbooks, Fed pamphlets, our own economists, and the fact that our public challenge has gone unanswered. We would then organize public meetings to present the material in three sessions. The first would utilize lecture and video. The second would build the human Fed model using members of the public. The third would repeat the model with a discussion afterward. Petitions and ETF rally material would be provided at the end.

This might seem involved, but it will build a high-quality foundation of understanding which will then be conveyed to other members of the public by the participants. Mathematically it would create an exponential community learning curve, which would start and grow slowly at first, but then rapidly increase in a short time.