–The single biggest issue in the coming Presidential election

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.


You may hate or love Obama or Romney. You may feel the nation is headed in the right or wrong direction. You may feel it’s time for a change, or to stay the course. These are the generalities of the coming election.

Many specific issues are involved – abortion, minimum wage, stem cell research, gay marriage, the deficit, taxes and tax rates, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, immigration, gun control.

Though Mitt Romney has stood on two sides of most issues, he has been consistent about one issue, and it is the most important one. It encompasses all of the above, and more: The makeup of the Supreme Court.

Contrary to the hopes of the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court is the most politically extreme of the three government branches. The other two, the Legislative and the Executive, are forced to be less politically extreme, because their members repeatedly must answer to an electorate that tends nearer to the middle. But the Supreme Court answers to no one.

Conservative Scholars Bullish That A Romney Supreme Court Could Reverse Longstanding Liberal Jurisprudence
Sahil Kapur, October 26, 2012

Liberal-leaning Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79, and Steven Breyer, 74, are likely candidates for retirement during a Romney administration, the GOP nominee has vowed to appoint staunch conservatives.

Over time, if a robust five-vote conservative bloc prevails on the court for years, the right would have the potential opportunity to reverse nearly a century of progressive jurisprudence.

Roger Pilon, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies and a member of the Federalist Society, told TPM that one more solid conservative vote would pave the way for “fundamental shifts on the Court” toward “a revival of greater protection for economic liberty and a direct assault on the modern regulatory state.”

Translation: The extreme right wing favors business protection over consumer protection, wealth protection over personal protection.

“If Romney were to appoint [conservative] justices and lower court judges, then we would see greater protection for economic liberty and greater scrutiny for regulation — whether they be environmental regulations, regulations for property rights, regulations for affirmative action, regulations of all sorts,” Pilon said.

Pilon says. “I expect that a Romney-appointed court would be more sympathetic to efforts to change the Medicare and Medicaid [and Social Security] programs because they’d come from that school of thought that says government has limited power.” It also means the Court would seek to narrow the berth for Washington to “engage in the kind of expansive programs like we saw with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank [financial regulatory reform],” he says.

Translation: Cut Medicare, cut Social Security, cut Medicaid, cut every social program that benefits the lower and middle classes, and cut out all those messy, consumer-protecting regulations designed to keep banks and big business from stealing.

Randy Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University [is] hopeful that a more conservative Court could cut away at regulatory measures and adopt a “this far and no further” approach to federal authority, to thwart further expansion of the social safety net . . . . mentioning elements of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and environmental regulations as targets that conservatives are already building cases against.

. . . the staunchest legal conservatives hope a fifth vote might lead to the eradication or restructuring of programs like Medicare and Social Security. . .

Translation: The losers: The lower- and middle-classes. The winners: The wealthiest 1%.

Tim Jost, a liberal law professor at Washington & Lee University, warns that . . . conservatives could scale back the federal government’s authority to compel states to participate in federal-state partnerships like Medicaid and . . . they could also curtail the Supremacy Clause to prevent low-income Americans from suing if they are denied government [Medicaid] benefits under the law. . .

Jost continued. “The Affordable Care Act survived by one vote, and four in the dissent were willing to get rid of all of it. Four members of the court have shown that they’re perfectly happy to get rid of pretty major progressive initiatives if they disagree with them.”

Roe v. Wade . . .survives now on a fragile 5-4 margin, which would likely flip if Ginsburg, Breyer or even Kennedy were to be replaced by a down-the-line-conservative justice.

“Women’s access to abortion is likely to be significantly curtailed under a Romney court,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA School of Law.

And the expansion of gay rights would likely hit a wall, Winkler adds, perhaps ending same sex marriage advocates’ hope that the Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Translation: Though conservative justices are proud of their role as Constitutional originalists (when convenient), the nation may well be surprised that being an originalist means taking the nation back to 1789. As with Taliban-style religious originalists, Constitutional originalists will return us to the dark ages of imperial law.

Romney could also meaningfully impact the Court, even without replacing liberal justices, if aging conservatives like Antonin Scalia, 76, and Anthony Kennedy, also 76, were to retire. Replacing them with younger conservatives would tilt the balance of the court for decades to come, likely solidifying the right-wing consensus on issues like campaign finance, affirmative action, civil rights and gun rights.

Cato’s Pilon believes that replacing one liberal justice with a conservative could pave the way for a slow return to the Lochner Era — when the Supreme Court invalidated minimum wage and child labor laws as unconstitutional.

“The court could find Social Security unconstitutional tomorrow, and that would be a good thing . . .”

Translation: For the extreme right wing, finding Social Security unconstitutional is a “good thing,” because the program provides no real benefit to the rich, but primarily helps the lower and middle classes.

A Romney Supreme Court Would Change The Constitution Without Amending It
By Ian Millhiser on Oct 11, 2012

*Eliminating The Right To An Abortion

*Judges For Sale: Romney named Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito as his models should he be allowed to pick new judges. All four said the Supreme Court should have done nothing when a wealthy coal baron payed $3 million to place a sympathetic justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court. That justice then cast the key vote to overrule a $50 million verdict against the coal baron’s company. Romney may even want his justices to go much further in permitting the very wealthy to buy elections — he previously endorsed allowing billionaires to give unlimited sums of money directly to his campaign.

*Government In The Bedroom: Only five of the Supreme Court’s current justices joined the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down Texas’ “sodomy” laws

To quote from “Romney Poses Greatest Danger to the Supreme Court” by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, “Romney flatly said that the judge that he longed to have on the current court is Robert Bork. Bork’s rabid, fringe, and at times borderline zany views and interpretation of judicial and constitutional law were so repulsive that his nomination to the court by President Reagan in 1987 was virtually DOA during the confirmation hearings.”

In summary, Romney’s extreme right wing supporters wish to follow a 1789 interpretation of the Constitution, a document written when consumer protections and individual rights were less important than a strict “Talibanesque” rule of law favoring the wealthiest and most powerful.

In four or eight years, Obama and Romney will be gone. But the Supreme Court justices will rule us for decades.

And that is the single biggest issue in the coming Presidential election.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports


4 thoughts on “–The single biggest issue in the coming Presidential election

  1. Direct quotes from the South Florida Sun Sentinel in an editorial titled, “Mitt Romney for president”:

    In these uncertain times, we need a leader who will chart a clear course, sweat the details and get the job done right.

    With our nation facing another fiscal cliff in January — when Congress again addresses the debt ceiling, tax hikes and spending cuts — social issues are not Job One.

    So Romney, who has changed his position on most issues, now is the leader who will “chart a clear course and sweat the details”? Yikes!

    And tellingly, “social issues” (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, anti-poverty programs, etc.) are less important than tax cuts for the rich.

    You can guess whether the publishers of the Sun Sentinel are rich or poor.


  2. Rodger, cutting Social Security, Medicare, etc is desirable for the “1%” in the sense of increasing the gap between the “1%” and the “99%,” but I think in the real dream is privatization. Imagine billions of FICA dollars not being destroyed upon receipt, but going to Wall Street. Imagine the floodgate this would open. As Wall Street continues to indulge in fraud and speculation, Wall Street will demand more and more bailouts, meaning higher and higher FICA taxes. The government could pay bailouts by creating money from nothing, buy why do that when Wall Street can crush the “99%” with ever-higher taxes?

    Further, this would allow Wall Street to say, “You see? Tax revenue is NOT destroyed upon receipt. It goes to maintaining Social Security, which is broke. Therefore you must send us even more from every paycheck.”

    As for the “fiscal cliff,” Congress will do one of two things. (1) Make a show of wringing its hands and predicting doom, but “miraculously” fixing the budget just in time for Christmas, or else (2) let it stand, and use it to push for privatization of Social Security and Medicare. If the former happens, then things will continue as usual until the US fiscal year ends on 30 Sep 2013, whereon the entire charade will begin anew. If the latter happens, then the “99%” will be doomed. Not only because of the loss of Social Security and Medicare, and not only because of whopping tax increases, but because this will be a new level in everything and everyone existing to serve Wall Street.

    Quantitative easing, for example, is between the Fed and the banks. The Fed exchanges credit for trash securities, but the credit goes to the reserve accounts of banks, and is not negotiable. It just sits there in the computers, and is used to back-stop bank fraud and bank lending. It has nothing to do with the money supply, and cannot cause monetary inflation.

    Privatized Social Security is different. It does not involve reserve accounts. It is a vast river of cash to Wall Street. Privatized Social Security is a wet dream for Wall Street, and a nightmare for the rest of us.

    The public refuses to understand these simple facts, and will not only accept their doom; they will cheer for it.


  3. This friend of mine. He absolutely believes that the source of ALL money (all of it) is loans from the Federal Reserve. He thinks that Congress and the Fed create no money; they borrow all of it from the Fed. He thinks a Social Security check come from the Fed, even though it has the words “United States Treasury” in bold letters. He thinks the “debt crisis” is real.

    I tried everything I learned from Rodger. Everything. I referred him to Rodger’s web site. I encouraged him to challenge Rodger. He won’t budge. I give up.

    My point? Some people can seem intelligent, but when it comes to Monetary Sovereignty, they are INCREDIBLY stubborn. They try any lame trick to avoid reality. For example, my friend says that a deposit at a bank is not a debt. He desperately clings to the belief that the Fed’s “evil” is matched only by its omnipotence.

    It never ends. Curious to see if there were anything else I could use to wake up this friend of mine, I just perused about fifty web sites. (Truly. No exaggeration). Every last one of them claim that the U.S. government gets its money from TAXES!!!!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s