Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[PoopyTeaBags]

A lot of the delegate numbers that the Mittens campaign and corporatist cheerleading media is stating that Mittens has may be over exaggerated. Because a few states moved up their primaries they are subject, by RNC rules to lose 1/2 of their delegates at the convention, but Mittens and his media is counting those potentially lost delegates in their numbers such that it looks like Mittens has more delegates than he may have.

Really this political election is bread and circuses for the masses IMO. Government Sachs and their ilk will never let a true conservative in. I'm afraid in the end we will be left with Red Team Statist and Blue Team Statist and the usual illusion of choice.

Eventually enough people on both sides of the two party paradigm will realize our illusion of democracy is just a meaningless illusion and take to the streets in protest.

its a 100% dog and pony show for the mass. keeping them distracted while they erode away are civil liberties are constitution and are country.

 

[bentom187]

"The Pirate Bay plans low-orbit server drones to escape legal jurisdiction"

http://njuice.com/dBV

 

[bentom187]

...

 

[whodare]

http://www.thetowerlight.com/2012/04/ron-paul-supporters-deserve-recognition/

Ron Paul supporters deserve recognition
8 APRIL 2012 BY CHAD MYERS, VICE PRESIDENT, TOWSON LIBERTARIANS 16 COMMENTS
As I read The Towerlight’s coverage of the 2012 presidential race, I was initially ecstatic that there was a mention of Ron Paul— something the publication has been blatantly dodging for quite a bit now. After I finished celebrating the end of the media blackout, I read the next paragraph where Paul’s speech at College Park was described as being, first what you’d obviously like to be foremost, “about his desire to legalize marijuana.”

Firstly, that statement was overly specific, as Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs and legalize all drugs, not just pot. Now, if you were actually at that speech like I was, you would have noticed that maybe a total of 60 seconds of the speech was actually spent on discussing drugs, and half of that was Paul warning about the dangers of drugs, even prescription drugs. The mainstream media has tried so hard, just as you have done with your short statement, to typify Ron Paul supporters as a bunch of crazy, unintelligent slacktivists whose only concerns are getting high. I can understand the mainstream media doing so, as they have masses of pop-culture-obsessed sheeple to whom they must pander. The Towerlight, on the other hand, is a free publication, which means you can actually report real news without negative consequences!

Allow me to explain what Ron Paul’s campaign is really about. I’ll admit, there are probably people who support Ron Paul simply because they want to legally consume drugs, just as there are probably plenty of Newt Gingrich supporters who are just in it for the moon base or Obama supporters who just can’t go another four years without more wars and corporate bailouts. But this is not a campaign of one issue, or even the office. This is the beginning of an intellectual revolution—one that could result in a complete shift of the socio-political paradigm. Here is a man with a message that has millions of young people worldwide not just voting, but wanting to read, discuss and learn about the world in which they live. The Ron Paul Revolution isn’t about getting high, as you’d like your readers to believe. It’s about free minds, free markets and free men and women. Perhaps it would best be reported as such.

Your article also presented the scenario of Mitt Romney running against Barack Obama in the general election, which is really just tyranny running against tyranny with nice hair. In fact, the two are so alike I’d bet Romney would even pick Joe Biden as his running mate. One student stated that they would prefer Obama in such a situation because of his “general success so far.” Now, I don’t know about you, but nearly $16 trillion of debt, more endless war and absolute disregard for basic civil rights don’t quite sound like any type of success to me. It was then said by that student that Obama would need two terms to get everything he wanted done. I completely agree on this point. It probably will take another term for President Obama to rob us of the rights we have left and to indefinitely detain all the political dissenters without due process. But hey, whether it’s Romney, Obama or Bush doesn’t really matter, as they’re all the same empty suit.

In endsay, The Towerlight needs to be more open to reporting on actual alternatives to our broken policies, because when you allow yourself to be trapped in the two-party system and left-right political paradigm and vote for the lesser of two evils, remember that you are still voting for evil. Nowadays, the two big choices are to vote for either a hammer or a power-drill to nail the coffin of your country shut. Let’s wake up, break free of that, and instead vote for the crowbar to pry the thing back open!

 

[ShroomDr]

Really this political election is bread and circuses IMO. Government Sachs and their ilk will never let a true free market leaning conservative in.

they never had to run one. It always painted as Stalin Von Liberal vs. Captain Fantastic Boogie Man Destroyer.

 

[SacredBreh]

As alway, excellent read Whodare!

As alway, excellent read Whodare!

It is just the start of the Revolution, hopefully it just stays a concept and debate and not blood and tears. The young people in America are awake and asking questions. They are not falling in the apathetic ant trail foot steps of most of the rest of us older people. Thank God, Allah, or who ever you pray too.

Someone will need to take the torch Dr. Paul has been running with even after his Presidency. Gary Johnson seems to be a promising leader. Below is a link to his reaction to the Lee issue in Cali. Thanks ShroomDr..... been watching him since you mentioned him many pages ago.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-gary-johnson-fed-raid-on-ca-legalization-advocate-an-outrage

Great things are starting to happen. Now is the time to act but as Spastic warns..... we need to be ready for the steal boots that are awaiting. Real CHANGE does not come easy.

Peace

 

[SacredBreh]

PoopyTeaBags...... seriously? A proxy? The one you use to access secret sites? Want me to tell you what your IP address is? I use to bounce my shit around the world but I have a friend that showed me on his lap top how easy it was to pull my account right out of the hoards. Even traced it back to my real IP address. He said really the safest is hard wire dial up... use to use it until it became pretty much useless. Still have to use an ISP and right there it all goes out the window. He was a senior network engineer and hacker but there are lots of them out there.

Not being a smart ass just ......... Privacy is an illusion. Proxy or not if you are a big enough fish to catch or make a blip on the radar..... your caught.

Be safe and stay in the school of fish, I try to stay in the middle of the school.

Peace

 

[ShroomDr]

Pretty sure it was Disco who intially brought up Gary Johnson. I might have been the first to say Buddy Roemer...

Cant remember exactly where, but G. Johnson was talking 'since RP says hes not running 3rd party'... 'vote for me cause i will'.

It came off kinda lame...


Not sure if they have thought of hooking up, havent heard Roemers name in a couple months...

 

[SacredBreh]

You are right ShroomDr.... my mix up. I have been watching both very closely. Looks like some great prospects. Am definately going with Dr. Paul but the future seems bright with both these guys stepping forward. Roemer seems to have many ideas I agree with the most. Hopeing to see more of Roemer as things develop.

Need to throw most of the bums out that are in there now and replace them. Dr. Paul will need lots of support and a sucessor for The Revolution.

Peace

 

[T_B_M]

Its pretty much over. If Romney's people can take a state like ND and get 60% of delegates with only 23% straw polls, theres no telling what the rest of the states will look like. This proves money talks yet again. Looks like the road to Revolution is going to be looooong and slooooow.

 

[paper thorn]

in the end we will be left with Red Team Statist and Blue Team Statist and the usual illusion of choice.

I couldn't agree more.

Edit: Who the hell would name their kid Mit? I don't think I could ever vote for a guy named Mit.
I guess he comes from those blue blood old money wealthy families that names their kids things like Buzz, Chad, Bif, and I guess Mit too.

 

[bentom187]

You are right ShroomDr.... my mix up. I have been watching both very closely. Looks like some great prospects. Am definately going with Dr. Paul but the future seems bright with both these guys stepping forward. Roemer seems to have many ideas I agree with the most. Hopeing to see more of Roemer as things develop.

Need to throw most of the bums out that are in there now and replace them. Dr. Paul will need lots of support and a sucessor for The Revolution.

Peace

you guys are absolutley correct about electing reprisentitives that are liberty minded heres a few

Thomas Massie :[YOUTUBEIF]pMYdxs92BYY[/YOUTUBEIF]

Glenn Bradley:[YOUTUBEIF]xnulwmF5VVU[/YOUTUBEIF]

Justin Amash:[YOUTUBEIF]ubw0x9LEaqU[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[whodare]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30185

As China declares fresh warnings of retaliation against any strike on Iran [1], the regime in Pyongyang shows no signs of aborting its upcoming controversial satellite launch, scheduled to take place on April 12th*through to April 16th. The Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite will be launched southward from the Sohae satellite launch station in Cholsan County, North Phyongan Province, using a long-range Unha-3 rocket; North Korean officials assured the international community that it would "strictly abide by relevant international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and technological satellites for peaceful purposes." [2] As Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak insinuate that Pyongyang’s upcoming satellite launch is a pretext to expand a program of nuclear terrorism [3], North Korea has*invited the space agencies of eight countries, including Japan, the United States, China and Russia, and the European Space Agency to observe the launch [4].


While North Korea attempts to assure the transparency of its space program to the international community, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency have both declined the invitation from Pyongyang [5]. Additionally,*Japan has announced the extension of unilateral sanctions on North Korea for another year [6], including a trade freeze and visa ban, while the US has announced a suspension of 240,000 tones of food aid to North Korea, reportedly allocated for children and pregnant women [7]. While the feasibility of the proposed $850 million satellite launch is questionable given North Korea’s economic instability in recent times [8], the Washington consensus has used UN Resolution 1874 to impede what may rightfully be a peaceful technological investment to monitor the country's crops and natural resources, in a move to prevent further food insecurity.

UN Resolution 1874 was passed unanimously following*the underground detonation of a nuclear device conducted on May 25th, 2009 in North Korea, imposing further economic sanctions on the country and authorizing UN member states to inspect North Korean cargo and destroy any materials suspected to be involved with the Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program [9]. While the 2009 test produced seismic activity measured at magnitude 4.7 [10], the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s (CTBTO) announcement that no*radionuclides*had been detected following Pyongyang’s test makes it difficult to prove that nuclear technology was in fact used at all [11]. Following a 2004 visit to North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear facility, US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker testified before US Congress that he saw no evidence of a nuclear bomb [12]; after visiting the facility again in November 2010, Hecker acknowledged the system’s increased capability, however noting that the experimental light-water reactor he was shown was still in the early stages of construction [13].

The accusations of North Korea’s ill-intentioned nuclear program appear highly suspect when tracing back the routes of technology it is accused of possessing. In 1994, the Swiss multinational giant Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) was awarded a $200 million contract with the North Korean government to install two light water nuclear power stations on the nation’s east coast following a deal with the US to freeze Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program [14]. Donald Rumsfeld, one of the Bush administration's most vocal opponents to North Korea, presided over the contract with Pyongyang when he was an executive director of ABB [15]. Although the US State Department claimed that the light water reactors could not be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Henry Sokolski, head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington disputed the claims of the US Government, offering, “These reactors are like all reactors, they have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we’re trying to prevent it acquiring.” [16] In 2002, the Bush Administration released $95 million US taxpayer dollars to begin construction of Pyongyang’s light water reactors, as part of the Agreed Framework [17].

The upcoming satellite test follows the failed launch of the*Kwangmyongsong-2, which had fallen into the Pacific Ocean in April 2009 [18]. Mirroring the present day scenario, the United States, South Korea and Japan then accused the launch of being an opportunity to test technology that could be used in the future to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile [19]. Following a Presidential Statement issued by the United Nations Security Council condemning the launch [20], North Korea withdrew from the Six Party Talks [21], claiming that the UNSC infringed its right to peaceful space exploration embodied in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 [22]. The upcoming launch of the Kwangmyongsong-3*satellite coincides with the 100th*anniversary of North Korea’s founding deity, Kim il-Sung. Both Japan [23] and South Korea [24] have vowed to intercept the Unha-3 rocket using AEGIS warships if it flies over the country’s territories. Pyongyang insists the launch does not violate any UN resolutions, following a Foreign Ministry spokesman who assured the international community that “North Korea will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes." [25]*

The double standards imposed on North Korea remain ever apparent, as the international community remains silent as South Korea*expands its arsenal of advanced military technology in an effort to become the world’s seventh largest arm exporter [26]. South Korea intends to import 60 fighter jets from Boeing with an enormous budget of $7.3 billion [27] and has recently agreed to an American Bunker Buster explosives arms agreement valued at $71 million [28], while North Korean ballistic technology appears to be constructed from components of Soviet origin suspected to be largely obsolete; analysts such as David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists' point out that the engines on the North’s Unha-2 launcher are based on Soviet technology developed in 1964 [29]. Upon closer examination, the threat on the Korean Peninsula is not as one-sided as the Washington consensus claims.

Following Pyongyang’s announcement in February assuring its readiness for “total war”*with South Korea and the United States during joint war drills conducted near North Korea’s border and territorial waters [30], the isolated nation has yet again warned against the interception of its missile, “Nobody should dare encroach upon the sky above Pyongyang, sacred capital of the DPRK, and they are gravely mistaken if they think they can survive after attacking Pyongyang. Whoever intrudes into the territorial air and seas even an inch under any pretext and intercepts the DPRK satellite or collects its debris will meet immediate, resolute and merciless punishment by the DPRK” [31]. Furthermore, Pyongyang has accused Obama of exploiting instability on the Korean Peninsula to strengthen his re-election campaign, citing the Korean threat as a pretext to allow the US Congress to mandate further executive expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the Pentagon’s serious budget shortage [32].

By allowing international experts to observe the planned launch of the*Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite, Pyongyang’s attempt to legitimize its peaceful intentions should be acknowledged. Although the Obama administration would like to appear as if they are in command of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, their actions indicate the limited leverage they have to affect the situation. The threat of North Korea has proven itself to be a valuable pretext for the continued presence of US military personnel in both South Korea and Japan. The US has worked to further marginalize North Korea to contain China, as construction begins for a controversial $970 million joint military base on South Korea’s Jeju Island [33], which would host up to 20 American and South Korean warships, including submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers once completed in 2014.

Washington’s decision to suspend food aid to North Korea ultimately works against its objectives of weakening the regime, as many citizens would further rely on Pyongyang’s food distribution system – irrespective to the moral argument of barring nutritional necessities to a nation that has previously experienced famine and cases of cannibalism [34]. An influx of foreign currency has ensured Pyongyang’s stability under its new leadership as China secures contracts to extract North Korea’s vast natural resources such as iron ore and coal, roughly valued at $6.1 trillion as of 2008 [35]. The US will continue to exploit the new regime’s eagerness to prove itself to the populace, as reports issued by the Council on Foreign Relations indicate its long-term program. The 2009 document entitled “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea” [36] advocates a military contingency plan involving the stationing of up to 460,000 foreign soldiers into a post-regime North Korea to its capture nuclear arms and ballistic missiles. The document also highlights the need to form a compliant transitional government acquiescent to market liberalization and privatization. As the potential for debilitating conflict on the Korean Peninsula remains ever present, the international community must approach Pyongyang with increased diplomacy and embrace its attempts at transparency in whichever medium.

Notes

[1]*China steps up pressure to prevent any attack on Iran, Reuters, April 6, 2012
[2]*Department of Defense: Satellite Launch Would Be A Destabilizer (Launch),*Satnews, March 19, 2012
[3]*World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat’, BBC, March 27, 2012
[4]*N. Korea invites 8 nations, Europe to observe satellite launch, The Mainichi, April 5, 2012
[5] Ibid
[6]*Japan won’t send observers to N. Korea rocket launch,*Russia Today, April 3, 2012
[7]*US confirms it has suspended North Korea food aid plans, BBC, March 28, 2012
[8]*Satellite shows $850 mln NK rocket launch imminent?*Russia Today, April 2, 2012
[9]*Resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 12, 2009
[10]*Earthquake Details: Magnitude 4.7 - NORTH KOREA, United States Geological Survey, May 28, 2009
[11]*Verification Experts Puzzled Over North Korea's Nuclear Test, Science, June 19, 2009
[12]*Visit to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, January 21, 2004
[13]*North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: A Report by Siegfried S. Hecker, Center for International Security and Cooperation, University of Stanford, November 20, 2010
[14]*Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea, Swissinfo, February 24, 2003
[15]*Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?, CNN Money, May 12, 2003
[16]*US grants N Korea nuclear funds, BBC, April 23, 2012
[17] Ibid
[18]*North Korea space launch 'fails',*BBC, April 5, 2009
[19]*Obama Condemns North Korea Launch, Calls for Nuclear Free World, Voice of American News, April 5, 2009
[20]*Statement by the President of the Security Council, United Nations, April 13, 2009
[21]*DPRK Foreign Ministry Vehemently Refutes UNSC's "Presidential Statement", Korean Central News Agency, April 14, 2009
[22]*Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, October, 1967
[23]*Japan issues destroy order as NK rocket launch looms,*Russia Today, March 31, 2012
[24]*S. Korea threatens to gun down North’s rocket,*Russia Today, March 26, 2012
[25]*N. Korea: We will never give up satellite launch, Russia Today, March 27, 2012
[26]*Drifting apart? The U.S. - ROK alliance at risk, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, March 2009
[27]*Boeing backtracks on stealthy jet offer, February 14, 2012
[28]*US Approves Sale of Earth Penetrator Bombs to South Korea, NTI, December 7, 2011
[29]*A post-launch examination of the*Unha-2, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 29, 2009
[30]*N. Korea 'ready for war' as South Korea, US stage war games, Russia Today, February 27, 2012
[31]*Interception of Satellite Would Be Regarded as Act of War: CPRK Spokesman,*Korean Central News Agency, April 5, 2012
[32]*Voice of Russia Snubs Reaction of U.S., Japan and S. Korea to DPRK's Projected Satellite Launch, Korean Central News Agency, April 6, 2012
[33]*Island’s Naval Base Stirs Opposition in South Korea, The New York Times, August 18, 2011
[34]*Alleged N. Korean police document reports case of cannibalism,*The Korea Herald, June 20,*2011
[35]*South losing race for the North’s resources, Korea JoongAng Daily, January 18,*2011
[36]*Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea, The Council on Foreign Relations, January 2009

 

[monkey5]

Ron Paul 2012 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpL6eQyXDs&feature=player_embedded#! ..Nice to see the main stream media lies!! Lol..monkey5

 

[Plant Early]

 

[itisme]

Pretty sure it was Disco who intially brought up Gary Johnson. I might have been the first to say Buddy Roemer...

Cant remember exactly where, but G. Johnson was talking 'since RP says hes not running 3rd party'... 'vote for me cause i will'.

It came off kinda lame...


Not sure if they have thought of hooking up, havent heard Roemers name in a couple months...

I have to give Disco credit as he was the first to bring up Gary Johnson that I recall and ShroomDr is correct about what GJ said about RP too. This is far from over......That is for sure!!! Ron Paul will not back any WARMONGER and that leaves GJ to take all if RP don't get the DELEGATES. Please sign up in your areas... It will get interesting soon enough and there is a RON PAUL "MARCH ON THE RNC" coming too....I'm sure the SMEDIA LIARS will not report it but it is gonna be harder to do that the White House March.

Veterans for Ron Paul March on RNC Rally the TROOPS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmuFQUJ5xI

August 27-30....Tell you families VETS, Please.

 

[itisme]

DHS Preparing for Civil War In US? ∞ NDAA NDRP Martial Law Police State Ron Paul Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaWOZU9TqQw&feature=related


New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRRFqKbRBrM&feature=related

 

[itisme]

Obama Executive Order a Prelude to Martial Law and Suspension of Elections?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1SeNykzNzk&feature=related

Go to the 2:04 minute mark and watch the Sessions and Peneta back and forth as Paneta states they don't need Congress to wage WAR with US TROOPS and he only needs NATO or the UN to WAGE WAR!!!!!!!

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

Obama Executive Order a Prelude to Martial Law and Suspension of Elections?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1SeNykzNzk&feature=related

Go to the 2:04 minute mark and watch the Sessions and Peneta back and forth as Paneta states they don't need Congress to wage WAR with US TROOPS and he only needs NATO or the UN to WAGE WAR!!!!!!!

Holy shit, you need to skip to 2:00 to watch this. Panetta was so smug about bypassing congressional approval for war, saying that the a security resolution from UN/NATO offer more of a "legal basis" for war than congressional approval, and that congressional approval is not necessary.. WTF???

 

[whodare]

http://mises.org/daily/6002/The-Feds-Swap-Bailout-of-the-Eurozone

On Tuesday, March 26, 2012, I was invited by Ron Paul and his staff to assist a meeting of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services. The title of the hearing was "Federal Reserve Aid to the Eurozone: Its Impact on the U.S. and the Dollar."

Unfortunately, Ben Bernanke had not come to the hearing, being busy with propaganda lectures in favor of the Fed. Instead, two of his colleagues, Mr. William C. Dudley (president and chief executive officer, Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and Dr. Steven B. Kamin (director, Division of International Finance, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), showed up to answer the committee's questions on currency swaps with other central banks.

The hearing dealt mainly with the Fed's currency swap with the ECB, which amounts to a covert bailout of European banks.

But why did European banks need help from the Fed in the first place? European banks had borrowed dollars short term in international wholesale markets and lent these dollars for the long term to US companies or households. The maturity mismatch is highly risky, because once a bank cannot renew its short-term debts it becomes illiquid.

We approached such a situation last year. European banks had been pressured by their governments to buy their governments' debts. Italian banks are loaded with Italian government bonds, Spanish banks with Spanish bonds and so on. As the sovereign-debt crisis increased once again in the summer of 2011 with governments short of collapsing, European banks had increasing difficulties renewing their short-term dollar loans. As the ECB can only print euros, not dollars, European banks got nervous. While US banks did not want to lend to European banks anymore, in September 2011, the Fed stepped in and bailed out European banks through currency swaps. Through the swaps, the Fed assumed its role as the international lender of last resort.

During the financial crisis between 2007 and 2009, the Fed had bailed out European banks mainly through direct loans to subsidiaries in the United States. In order to conceal the bailouts, the Fed now uses mainly currency swaps. In the swap, the Fed sells dollars to the ECB and buys them back later at the same price, receiving interests. This construction resembles a dollar loan to the ECB at about 0.6 percent (0.5 percent above the federal-funds rate). The ECB can then use these dollars to lend them to troubled European banks.

At the hearing the Fed officials did not deny the obvious: the bailout of European banks by the Fed. Rather, they claimed that the bailout was basically a free lunch for US taxpayers, as they would get an almost-risk-free benefit in the form of the interest on the swap.

Further, the Fed officials maintained that the bailout was necessary because a default of European banks would cause stress in financial markets. Through the interconnectivity of financial markets, US banks would get into problems; lending to US households and companies would be affected negatively.

Lastly, they made assurances that the Fed will end the swap-bailout policy once it becomes imprudent and the costs and risks of such a policy exceed the benefits for the US public.

Let's have a look at these startling arguments.

First, there ain't no such a thing as a free lunch; not even for the Fed, the ultimate money producer. Just remember that US banks did not want to lend to European banks, because they regarded it as too risky. Even the central-bank swap is not risk free. It is true that the Fed has locked in the exchange rate and expects to get back the same amount of dollars plus interest. Yet there remains counterparty risk: what if the ECB, goes bust? Then the creditors, including the Fed, will take over the ECB's assets. Creditors would receive assets such as Greek government bonds, or loans to Portuguese banks. These banks depend on ECB liquidity lines and are collateralized by bonds issued by the Portuguese government, which also depends on the ECB to support it.

In the end, the ECB balance sheet is backed to a large extent by bonds from insolvent governments that are only kept afloat thanks to the ECB's promises to keep printing money and the pledged support of German taxpayers.

While an ECB bankruptcy does not seem imminent, the ECB has increased its capital to make good for potential losses already back in 2010, and the Bundesbank increased its provisions for losses in 2011. In the mean time, the ECB has bought even more Greek government debt. The ECB is probably one of the most highly leveraged banks in history.

Of course, the Fed hopes that eurozone governments will always recapitalize the ECB if it is necessary, so that ultimately taxpayers return the dollars to the Fed. But what if Germany leaves the eurozone? While this is unlikely in the short term, the possibility exists for the long run. Then southern European governments will default on their debts — and take their banks and the ECB down with them. Then who will pay back dollar swaps to the Fed?

The swap is also no free lunch as opportunity costs are involved. By abstaining from producing dollars and lending them to the ECB, the US-dollar money supply would be smaller and backed by better-quality assets (not indirectly by Greek government bonds). The dollar production also implies a redistribution toward the first receivers of the new dollars, the ECB, European banks, and their borrowers (mainly irresponsible and insolvent governments) to the detriments of the last receivers, mainly US citizens, who are confronted with a debased dollar.

There are other opportunity costs. The Fed could have produced the same amount of dollars and not invested in the central-bank swaps. These swaps earn very low interest. Instead of the swaps, the Fed could have purchased other assets, like stocks of Apple or gold, which may rise more in value.

One cost of the swap operation acknowledged by the officials in the hearing is the moral hazard created. Banks and governments worldwide may expect that the Fed will come to save them, too, especially if they are well connected with the US financial system. So why be prudent?

The highest cost of the swaps, though, may be something else. Through the swaps, the Fed is helping the ECB to bail out European banks that finance insolvent and irresponsible governments. The Fed is indirectly bailing out countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain, debasing the dollar. Thanks to the bailouts, the political project of the euro continues. Without the swaps, some European banks might have failed, and with them their sovereigns. Thanks to the swaps, the eurozone stays intact.

The project of the euro leads to an ever-increasing rescue fund, and gradually toward a fiscal union and more centralization. A European financial government and the European super state, which would most likely abolish tax competition in Europe, are on the horizon. The highest cost of the Fed policy, therefore, may be liberty in Europe.

The Fed officials also made clear that they think the swap arrangement benefits the US public by keeping stress away from US banks and financial markets. The Fed does not want stock markets to fall or interest rates to increase. For them, low interest rates are the panacea for all economic ills. However, having artificially low interest rates climb back to more normal levels is no disaster. Sustainable investments are always restricted by real savings. Lowering interest rates does not increase the amount of real savings at all. Moreover, an important feature of a market economy is that people take responsibility for their actions. If US banks have granted loans to European banks and governments, they should assume the losses from their risky behavior.


Finally, the Fed claims to be prudent. But how can the Fed know the point at which it is no longer prudent to bail out foreign banks? How can it know when the costs of the bailouts start to exceed the benefits to the US public? How can they know what is best for the United States? Interpersonal-utility comparisons are arbitrary. Thanks to the bailouts, some banks may win, some stock owners may win, but at the cost of liberty in Europe and to the detriment of dollar users. Moreover, bailouts produce moral hazards, crises, and losses for individuals in the future. Yet the Fed claims to know what to do: social engineering at its best — or, as Hayek would put it, a fatal conceit on the part of central (banking) planners.

In sum, the Fed has assumed the task of bailing out the financial industry and governments worldwide by debasing the dollar. Fed officials claim to know that the bailout-swaps are basically a free lunch for US taxpayers and a prudent thing to do. Thank God the world is in such good hands.