Sphere of Influence.

Cultural issues are on the rise as is evident in the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Montana Wolf issue and even in religious freedom on ski slopes (blog below).

What fascinates me about these struggles is their origins. It's all about the rights of man and beast. The struggle is to prove which idea is superior or whose culture is superior. Democracy is based on superiority and the Occupy Wall Street movement embraces that with "The 99% against the 1%". Where does this superiority come from and is it moral?

Let's look at both the 99% and the 1%. The protesters, the ninety nine percent, are the majority in influence based on physical superiority. The financial elite, the one percent, are the majority in influence based on monetary superiority. It doesn't make sense to say that both sides have a majority in influence, because money doesn't have rights, physical people do. But, yet that is exactly what is being protested, that the 1% has too much influence through financial (economic) channels and that their physical superiority should have the influence through social (society) channels. This is the classic socioeconomic struggle. The rights of the people are their morals. Most of these rights seemed to be handed down through religion with all of the "shall" and "shall nots". Moral superiority, therefore, is held by the people in their god-given rights. We don't need religion to know what is right and wrong, what is moral and just. So we'll keep this somewhat secular.

"Sphere of Influence" is a geopolitical term used to describe one culture's influence within another, or the superiority of one culture over another. The Anglosphere is one such example and is described as all english-speaking cultures; England, the U.S., Canada and Australia as well as several nations within the African continent, India and Pakistan, because English is their official language even though it isn't the majority language. Interesting how the U.S. doesn't have an official language, but English is the majority language. Sphere of Influence doesn't have to be relegated to language, but includes any cultural norm, or moral value shared with multiple cultures. People will argue that the Anglosphere is bigoted and for good reason because it bases its existence on the idea that English is the superior language of these cultures and the definition of racism is: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." But there are other sphere's of influence such as the Sinosphere that includes many nations in Asia whose language is based on Chinese or Kanji. The Hispanosphere is made up of all countries that have a Spanish-speaking population, to include the U.S. The U.S. is in two spheres of influence? Yes, multiple spheres (melting pot of spheres of influence) and just like those that say the Anglosphere is bigoted and that the 1% have too much influence, the issue is far more complex than just catch-phrase generalizations.

To break it down and pick through the complexities of these spheres let's break it down caveman style, down to the most basic influences. To do this I want to write a little about the history of the grey wolf and a microcosm in part of Montana that is currently dealing with one of these struggles; Ravalli County. The history of the grey wolf is pretty well-known, especially in areas where the animal once roamed in vast numbers and by people within the environmental movement. Wolves have spheres of influence just like we humans do, but this is not to say that we share environments as we have evolved beyond living in caves and dens in a hunter/gatherer culture. Our environment now consists of man-made structures and machines. This is an environment that wolves do not share with us, just as we would not survive comfortably in their environment. Our sphere of influence does, however, overlap into theirs via wilderness designations and setting aside national forests and the formation of the Endangered Species Act. The overlap in these spheres has a dark past for both them and us, because we could not live within their sphere of influence, or rather our livestock couldn't live, so we pushed them out and eradicated them from the lower 48. Those species that they once predicated upon began to thrive and grew in numbers and we hunted the elk and raised the livestock and expanded our sphere of influence, becoming a superior influence in their old environment. So superior, it seems, that we've brought them back to flourish in their old stomping grounds. Their sphere of influence has grown massively since their reintroduction, biologists would call this their expanding territory. The hunting of wolves has, once again, been allowed. This is simply to manage the sphere of influence by forcing ourselves into theirs and limiting their influence in ours. It is easy to see why environmental groups are so upset about it right now, because they see history starting to repeat itself. Let's revisit that definition of racism, but with a slight change in the wording:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various species determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own species is superior and has the right to rule others." Speciesism? Animal rights versus human rights and spheres of influence. While I know wolves can't form doctrine, they do have instincts or beliefs and their instinct is to kill, indiscriminately. This is the trait that we struggle against in trying to cope with them as they expand their sphere of influence, their territory, to become the superior species in the environment and our sphere of influence. Matt Kanenwisher, a Ravalli County commissioner, put together a fact-finding board to see how the wolves are influencing and impacting the citizens of the West Fork of the Bitterroot. This area is the major overlap between the two spheres of influence and the source of contention on both sides of the issue. His presentation can be found on YouTube. There is data supporting a decline in elk populations and official reports of attacks, by wolves, on livestock. This is a real issue where we have to look at the superiority in the spheres of influence of multiple species to see if we are going to be superior, or if the wolves are going to be superior. Our superiority in this case will ensure the survival of all of the other species there. The culture in Ravalli County will have to change drastically to accommodate the wolves' influence, because we can't make wolves accommodate our influence without the use of hunting, which led to eradication in the first place. That's the caveman style struggle. So, let's go back to a couple of these other issues and let's face fact that these are cultural issues.

The Occupy Wall Street movement pits wealthy elites and their sphere of influence against the rest of the population's sphere of influence. We can see that their influence comes from money and our influence comes from shear numbers. Again, rewording the definition for racism comes in handy:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various classes of wealth determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own class is superior and has the right to rule others." Classism actually is a real "ism" defined as: prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class. The reworded definition of racism also fits. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement say this isn't about class warfare, but it truly is and to lie about that is disingenuous. The warfare, or struggle for superiority, in the Bitterroot shows that point as well.

Lastly I want to use the reworded definition again for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the issue that got me thinking about spheres of influence in the first place:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human ideologies determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own ideology is superior and has the right to rule others. Ideologism? Doesn't quite roll eloquently off the tongue but "Ideologue" does.

Ideologue: an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

That could be used to describe both religious organizations and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. One sphere of influence seeking superiority over another is always seen as a struggle where the only loser is society itself. The struggle between wolf and man is only different because it is purely about survival on a primitive level. An atheist's survival is not based on a statue on a mountain in Montana. Struggle for survival can lead to the moral high-ground. That is moral superiority: ensuring survival, ensuring continued existence and avoiding eradication. That is exactly why racism has to be stopped and why speciesism has to be stopped, why classism has to be stopped and why ideologues have to be stopped. The survival of all species, all races, all classes, all ideas is superior to a one-sided society. This is why liberty trumps equality and egalitarianism. The survival of liberty AND equality is the key. Last I checked, this country was founded on both of those ideas. That sphere of influence isn't necessarily ours either. That idea came from the Age of Enlightenment and was used in the Storming of the Bastille and the three important words: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, fraternity). Yes, the U.S. does fall into another sphere of influence. Funny how the best ones tend to overlap more frequently in one place.

One last reworded definition:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human morals determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own morals are superior and has the right to rule others.

Moralism: (Philosophy) the practice of moral principles without reference to religion.

For any organic cultural shift there has to be something that all people can agree to shift towards. Freedom from Religion? You'll never be free from it and its sphere of influence, so why not expand a sphere of moralism and maybe one day a better form of religion will emerge, organically.

Go ahead and think of any derision in society and use the definition of racism as a template:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Just replace the words "races" and "race" with any human condition or remove "human" also for other conditions. The resulting "ism" will certainly point you in the right direction in any argument just as it does by being accused of racism.

Try it with:

"Climate theory" (maybe even expand the english language: "climatetheorism")

"Environment"

"Politics"

"Legal Entity" (Corporation vs. an Individual) "Legalentitism" would be a good one to spring on some corporate elites who see themselves as Too Big To Fail and deserve taxpayer dollars to line their coffers or use their superior campaign contributions to get what they want out of government. They have no respect for the individual's survival.

The resulting "ism" will always be the term to show bigotry in the argument to help you push for the moral high-ground...

Bigoted: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

...in any issue with two sides that is causing derision of epic proportions in this day and age. Remember that the moral high-ground comes from the most primitive of needs: Survival of all and the continuance of both sides of the issue within both spheres of influence. It won't be easy to do, just as the case between wolves and humans, but that's why they call it a struggle.

(I certainly hope I haven't recreated any of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with this philosophy. He tended to move towards removing liberty from society. Mine is intended to preserve it.)

Holy Big Mountain Jesus.

Ski resorts have a nice symbiotic relationship with the Federal Government by leasing public lands for private use. This isn't unique to just ski resorts, for example Plum Creek Timber leases public lands to harvest timber. What is unique is that ski resorts build permanent structures and rarely will the lease run out or be revoked. Instead, most resorts will actually expand their leased areas to expand their runs and their capacity. Ski resorts such as Big Mountain have a long history of providing a business and a heritage to local areas. Memorials and art are found at some of these locations.

In 1953 the Knights of Columbus of Whitefish Montana wanted to dedicate a memorial to WWII veterans. Their idea was to erect a statue on the well-known mountain that has become a mecca for downhill skiers. That statue, The Big Mountain Jesus, actually isn't as well-known as the mountain itself, until just recently when a atheist group from Wisconsin was informed about the statue and that it violates the separation of church and state. I'll return to that argument in a moment, but first let's look at another iconic statue in Montana that sits on U.S. National Forest land: Our Lady of the Rockies.

This statue sits in the Butte Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and to visit the statue you have to drive through the Jefferson Ranger District as well. The website for the statue states that it was "built in the likeness of Mary, Mother of Jesus." That is obvious, but what isn't obvious is the intention of the statue to be "entirely nondenominational and was dedicate to[sic] by workers to woman[sic] everywhere, especially mothers." I suppose the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro is nondenominational too or the Star of David on the Israeli flag doesn't mean only a Jewish culture. I'm not advocating the removal of Our Lady of the Rockies from Federal land, nor am I advocating that Big Mountain Jesus's intentions be played down as a nondenominational icon.

Enter Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Madison Wisconsin group Freedom From Religion Foundation. Gaylor is advocating removal of the Big Mountain Jesus (BMJ) who, according to the Associated Press, says; "This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well. If skiers think it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association." Her advocacy is, in and of itself, dogma and is no different than religious dogma. Gaylor looks to force her will to have a symbol removed from public land leased by private industry. What's interesting about this group from Wisconsin is that they are worlds apart from Montana in the fact that Wisconsin land is 94.4% privately owned and 5.6% Federally owned whereas Montana land is 70.1% privately owned and a whopping 29.9% Federally owned. So the people of this country own more of Montana than they do of Wisconsin. Yet, here we have a group telling people to go put these symbols on private land and not just on land leased by private industry. That can be done, but looking at Wisconsin vs. Montana, it can be done more easily in Wisconsin with more private land.

Statistics is always a strawman argument so let's look at what the Bill of Rights says about religion and government:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The whole first amendment is pretty powerful. It covers a wide area of rights all related to our right to organically dictate our culture without interference from the Federal Government. Interference from the government would be considered social engineering and is not organic nor democratic.

When I was in high school there was a statute that afforded students exemption from major tests, homework and essays from being due on Thursdays because most churches held services on Wednesday nights. This springs from the McGowan v. Maryland case that challenged the Sunday Closing Laws. The Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause challenge by claiming that our culture surrounding a day off is secular and establishing that day as Sunday is just an easy standardization that also takes into account "the dominant Christian sects." Here's where today's secularists get hung up: "make no law respecting the establishment", they paraphrase it differently or perhaps literally; they will not allow congress or the state to respect the establishment of religion. However, "respecting" and "respect" are two different connotations.

We need to return to Freedom from Religion Foundation's argument about BMJ. They claim it is a "ruse and a sham" to consider the statue a historic marker. Gaylor told the Associated Press; "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened. Just because a violation is long lasting doesn't make it historic. It makes it historically bad. It makes it worse. It makes it all the more reason to get rid of it." I'm going to inject my own personal impression here and say that as I read this woman's comments I hear a lot of anger and hatred for this symbol and not any consideration or respect for others who have a love and adoration for this symbol. It is that dogma that has her secular views treading in, or on (pun intended), the same waters as her argument is directed against. The thing is, her symbol is "nothing" and cannot offend anyone, yet her actions offend many and are just as abrasive to the locals as the symbol of BMJ's image, supposedly, is to her. My question to her would not be "why does this offend you" it would be "how can you disrespect what this symbolizes". It seems to me, if she had some twisted amendment in the Bill of Rights to back her up, she'd have St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City torn down or even the Cathedral of St. Helena in Montana's capital city demolished and removed from her view so as to not offend her and other atheists worldwide. The Crusades were pious people going after heretics, Gaylor's movement seems to be secularists going after organic culture (locals devoted to the symbol of BMJ). Equal freedoms doesn't mean equal atrocities and no where in the constitution are her views supported. However, congress or the state shall make no laws respecting her dogma and establishment of her views as well. Paradoxically if read the way secularists interpret the amendment, it doesn't respect her views. So who's inalienable right is being infringed? The private business on leased public land respecting the symbol erected in memorial of WWII veterans or the private secularist foundation that has no respect for the symbol?

Former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, Bob Brown sums it up pretty well:

We all agreed around the table this is a tempest in a teapot. This is making trouble for us in our little community. Why don't they just leave us alone? We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, 'why does anyone want to tear that down.'

They won't leave us alone because they don't respect us and our traditional norms, Bob, and those norms are seen as vile and offensive in other cultures like those in Wisconsin. This isn't about secularism, really, it is about standardizing and equalizing an engineered society. Most places call that egalitarianism, I call it totalitarianism. The first amendment protects us from totalitarianism and state-engineered society, so Foundations such as Freedom From Religion dictate to us how our culture should be formed. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are the perfect solution to that social engineering. These foundations and organizations will force their ideals upon us saying that it isn't cute to use symbols of organized religion all the while using the Constitution to back them up. How can they not see the hypocrisy in that? Let the organization of religion force their views on the atheists and see how ugly the battle gets. The sleight of hand with these foundations must be exposed. These atheists are hiding behind the constitution as they see it interpreted but don't see that it protects others from what they are trying to do. The "free expression" of Big Mountain Jesus is protected. If it offends you, don't ski there. If you can't respect Big Mountain's tradition in honoring WWII veterans, maybe they should have you removed.

This is why I don't advocate Our Lady of the Rockies to be removed nor Big Mountain Jesus's intentions to be changed to a nondenominational icon. Both actions are absurd and ridiculous, because I am just one person. Freedom is Freedom. Liberty is Liberty. If the majority in our society see fit that our culture no longer shall use religious symbols, then the society has organically shifted away from these symbols, regardless of their location. If the majority start to see that statues of the Virgin Mary or Jesus are nondenominational, than culture has organically moved away from seeing them as religious symbols. But, to have a small group of atheists impose their culture on the whole of the society is not organic. They may have found a way to get around the Constitution's prohibition of governmental social engineering, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution gives them free reign to socially manipulate our "free expression". The 1st Amendment is worded very well to protect us not only from the Federal Government, but also from small organizations that fall just outside of that purview as well. If Gaylor ran for President, she'd lose all of the power she thinks she has. Using the courts and the Constitution to make laws respecting an establishment of religion is prohibited and negates her entire argument regardless if she is part of an NGO or a government official. Trying to use the system to negate itself is paradoxical and is like trying to build a bottle around the water rather than putting the water into the bottle. If you're prohibited from putting the water into the bottle, than you don't have bottled water,,,period. Okay, that's a weak analogy for such a convoluted issue. No one can take the position of the state to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, not even Gaylor and her Foundation of atheists. However, she has a concentrated group of people who advocate a belief, therefore they have their own "religion" that is protected also from the state and no one can take the position to make a law respecting that. They can't be prohibited by law and they can not use the that same right to prohibit others. That's the paradox. So why do they think they have the power to do just that? More pointedly; How have they been able to form a foundation with the sole purpose of Freedom From Religion? Here's an extension of that paradox. They are manipulating more and more people to advocate their ideas and are growing in numbers to become the majority so that they can claim that this movement, this cultural shift, is organic. The manipulation negates the definition of an organic movement. On top of that, people are free from religion already if they so choose. The advocacy proves that they don't want freedom from religion, emancipation from dogma, they want to erase religion because they think it is best for everyone and they have no respect for your cares, wishes and culture.

As of the writing of this blog on Monday the 24th of October, 2011, there is one article written on Sunday the 23rd that states in its subtitle: "U.S. Forest Service Reverses Decision to Remove Montana Statue" It will be opened for public discussion. The respect of the people comes first. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Free Market?

Do we live in a society where the word "Occupy" has become as normal as saying; "protest"? Are we protesting in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? Does Israel protest in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights? No. These are occupied nations and territories. Occupying implies that the occupier has command and control of that which is being occupied. These protesters, all over the country, are not Occupying Wall Street in the sense that they are taking over the financial institutions that are deified by the name of a district in Lower Manhattan, rather they are symbolically blocking the street.

However, in a bi-partisan fashion, apathy has finally moved into empathy and even sympathy, but it is early in this movement and there is a fog over even the name of the movement. The 99% will "occupy" each and every city and protest the other 1% who are the targets of blame for the crumbling state of these United States. The fog also shrouds other things like what direction this all should take. The fervor is piqued. The Man is the enemy. There is so much pent up frustration that it is just exploding like a poorly tossed hand-grenade. There are some that are even calling for the end of capitalism.

What is capitalism?

Dictionary.com:

an economic system in which the investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Whew.

How about a more concise statement from Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.

I'm not trying to be pretentious with the definition of capitalism, but it is important to look at a few key aspects of the system. The one I want to focus on (and what many others should be focusing on) is the last part from the Wikipedia definition: "usually in competitive markets."

We have to look at capitalism like an old piece of machinery, which it really is: The machinery of finance and economy. The working parts have to be free to move as required by those it serves. Yet these parts have to be regulated by engineering to work in tandem with all of the other parts of the system. This is the Free Market and I think the use of the term has been skewed much like the term "occupy", so lets use another word to remove the old paradigm from the lexicon: Liberated Markets. We'll still use the term, coined by Adam Smith; "the invisible hand" to personify the spirit of the people in the market.

A market is any place we trade goods or services. If I'm hungry I can satisfy that hunger by going to a grocery market and trade my cash, which I've gotten for my services in the labor market, for a frozen dinner. If I want to retire I can satisfy the needs of retirement by going to a financial market and investing my cash for its future value. Like the many choices at the grocery market, there are many choices in the financial markets. I chose a frozen dinner because it was quick and easy, but it is "high-risk" because it may not be healthy. There are low and high risks in financial markets too. Some of the more high-risk instruments in finance are the Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives.

In any loan there is a risk for default and as we saw in the housing crash there were a higher-than-normal number of defaults. Finance institutions hedge against default by taking out a form of insurance called a Credit Default Swap (CDS). This derivative is a basket of high- and low-risk loans. They are packaged in such a way that their overall risk is minimal and are traded in the financial markets. People think that when they take out a loan that their bank will hold on to that loan, but it is often traded on the market for investments. Yes, institutions are investing in your investments. They get swapped and repackaged by many entities as they hedge against your potential default. If we were to look at the buzz about a U.S. default on debt, we can look at the price of currency and Treasury Bonds. The rate of T-bond will go up when issuers are at risk of default. These "Junk Bonds" will hedge the currency in the event of default. That is a generalization as there are many factors that swing the pendulum of finance hither and fro. So derivatives are passed around hither and fro as well. These insurance policies against default, or securities, have grown to massive proportions.

There is no exact number or value to be found on the derivatives market because it is too big to calculate. Each time a derivative is repackaged and resold the old value still exists unless the debtor actually defaults (much like a Put Option in perpetuity). For every good citizen making his or her payments on their loan, there is a massive amount of asset value on many different accounting books. Is this the "invisible hand" of the "free market"? No. This is the rambunctious free-wheeling market.

The paradigm is that a true free market will have fewer and fewer regulations oppressing it. This, however, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of it all is that a free market has to have a set of rules and guidelines in order to maintain order, much like the Constitution of these Free and Independent People of the United States. Hence, the markets need to be Liberated from institutions that are funneling money one way, by investing in your investments (drinking your lemonade). Etymology and definition are need here:

liberare "set free" to free an occupied territory from the enemy.

Liberated; to free from social or economic constraints or discrimination, especially arising from traditional role expectations or bias.

"Or bias". Where can we find an example of bias in our economic situation? Do I even need to ask? Too Big To Fail.

Legislation after the Great Depression created "constraints" in trading on markets to stifle another panic like the one that created the Great Depression. This action did not involve bias. This action went against what the Federal Reserve and the bankers of Wall Street wished. The banks used to loan money at huge discounts to build up interest through the vast number of loans rather than high rates on a small number of loans. Cash seemed free to the debtor and interest through fractional reserve banking was the bankers' dream. The prosperity from this was only a facade though, and when the realization of a devaluing dollar and inflation kicked in, people panicked, leading to the Great Depression. The solution to that problem was regulation for the betterment of the markets and came in the form of the Glass-Steagall Act. This act separated commercial and investment banks and formed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The newly formed Federal Reserve Central Bank (1913) was none too happy with slicing up the banking market because this meant less control over the money supply, which is the Mission of the Federal Reserve (Fed). Loans are, in essence, future reserves of cash and fractional reserve banking methods expanded that future money supply with every new loan. The Fed expands the money supply by purchasing Treasury Bonds (T-bills) on open markets, so when the banks were expanding the money supply for them with massive amounts of loans, they didn't need to buy U.S. debt (T-bills) and the U.S. was a creditor nation. Many factors changed all of that. The U.S. moved away from gold-backed currency, expanded the money supply through purchasing of T-bills and quickly became a debtor nation as the result of WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism (war is good for the economy, right?). Glass-Steagall did its part to control the markets in the best interest of the people during these unsure times, with the exception of the Global War on Terrorism.

Now, we are up to the present-day U.S. as a debtor nation, but we need to reverse to 1999 when the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act were gutted and the CDS and other derivatives were unleashed on the world due to the overinflated Tech Market. The Clinton administration saw the restrictions of Glass-Steagall as a restraint on new fundamentals and that the Act was an anachronism which needed to be removed from the finance markets...setting them "free". The first sonic wave to resound from this action was the Tech-bubble bursting in 2001. This was exacerbated by terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in the same year. The new free-wheeling market, under the Bush administration, took it in stride and created the next bubble in the housing market, which collapsed in 2007-2008. The Fed started printing fiat (not asset-backed) currency at an alarming rate and purchased short-term T-bills with it in hopes of expanding the money supply to cover all of the derivatives that had saturated the markets since the end of Glass-Steagall. On top of that, the U.S. bailed out banks to the tune of trillions of taxpayer-dollars. The Fed is still pumping billions into the money supply and the derivatives void, doing what the banks did prior to the 1929 crash that precipitated the Great Depression.

Occupy Wall Street is a start, but it needs to find focus. The idea to end capitalism (Leninism, 1917) is as old as the Fed (1913), yet no one seems to be looking at the Fed and its abuses with our supply of money. To Liberate the markets is to liberate them from the control of the Fed and this ever-expanding supply of fiat currency to cover an endless void of derivatives created by an unchecked banking cartel known as Wall Street. Who is the dog on the leash and who is the master? The "Creature from Jekyll Island" also known as the Federal Reserve Bank is very much the master of the economy. The history of this privately owned central bank is complex, to say the least. But, it is so very important to know what their mission is and how it directly affects the economy right now.

The Federal Reserve's Mission Statement from The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

*conducting the nations's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

*supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.

*maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

*providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payment system.

1) Prices are unstable. Just visit a grocery store from month to month.

2) Banking is not safe and it is unsound. Just try to get a loan for a small business or a home.

3)Foreign institutions are crumbling faster than ours. Just look at Greece, Italy, Portugal, Germany and France.

4)High unemployment is plaguing the nation.

All of which, according to the Fed's mission statement, are in the purview of the Federal Reserve System.

From the looks of the Fed's mission, they have miserably FAILED in every category of their being and maybe, just maybe, the People will truly start an Occupation....on the Federal Reserve to Liberate our markets and restore the machinery of capitalism so that it will work for the 99% and not just the 1%.