truthfulpolitics.com

Oct 082010
 
Share

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Treaty between USA and Libya, signed at Tripoli, November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797
Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797
Ratified June 10, 1797
Entered into force June 10, 1797
Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 10, 1797


According to the Yale Law School:

“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all.'”

The entire treaty can be read by clicking on NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION.

Oct 082010
 
Share

Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America mentions:

  • “the Connecticut Puritans determined to plant a ‘Christian Commonwealth,’ what Governor John Winthrop hoped would become a ‘City upon a Hill’ that would inspire believers everywhere as a model Christian Nation.” [Governor Winthrop is not considered a Founding Father.)
  • “William Williams, merchant and delegate to the Connecticut Ratifying Convention [not considered an official Founding Father] thought that the Preamble ought at least to express ‘a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governour of the world.'”
  • To James Madison [a Founding Father], “‘the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States’ was the surest guarantee of ‘the sacred principle of religious liberty.'”
  • Adam Smith [not a Founding Father] in Wealth of Nations said “The clergy of every established church constitute a great incorporation.” “He added that ‘where there is . . . but one sect tolerated in the society,’ religious teachers give full vent to their ‘interest and zeal,’ including the propagation of fear, prejudice, and superstition, and thus can become ‘dangerous and troublesome.'”
  • “This book argues that in deciding the place of religion in the new republic, the Founding Fathers, rather than designing a church-state framework of their own, endorsed the emerging free marketplace of religion.”

To read more of Frank Lambert’s book, click on The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.

Oct 082010
 
Share

John Madison, the fourth President of the United States, said this in Memorial and Remonstrance:

“The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.”

He also said:

“In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst.”

In a Veto in 1811, James Madison also said:

“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment’.”

Thomas Paine, an author, in his book, The Age of Reason said:

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Abraham Lincoln [not a Founding Father] said:

“When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: ‘All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty–to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Additional quotes may be found by clicking on This link is currently unavailable.


According to EadsHome Ministries:

  • John Adams and John Hancock said “we Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
  • John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress said “the general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity”
  • John Adams said December 25, 1813 in a letter to Thomas Jefferson “I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.”
  • Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787, “in the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
  • Alexander Hamilton in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention said “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”
  • Thomas Jefferson said “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
  • George Washington said “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

Further quotes from the Founding Fathers can be found on the EadsHome website by clicking on Founding Fathers Quotes.


Archiving Early America has an article describing some of the Founding Father’s views on religion and government:

Thomas Jefferson, “in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, ‘Question with boldness even the existence of a god.'”

“Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:”

‘During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.’

The entire article can be found by clicking Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America’s Government Is Secular.

Oct 082010
 
Share

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Growth in the Stock Market by Political Party and President

To read the entire article, click on Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants.


Bryan Keller in Seeking Alpha in June 2008 wrote the following:

“Additionally, though the analysis done in this paper may have come to the conclusion that historically incoming Democratic Presidents have been good for the stock market, in no way can that be extrapolated to mean that we think they will continue to be in the future. There are many, many other underlying currents out there both positive and negative that will have greater impacts on the stock market then will the election of a figure head (Republican or Democrat) to an office that often times is more ceremonial than substantive to the daily grind of the economy.”

To read the full article, click on Political Party Power and Its Affect on U.S. Market Return.


Jeremy Siegel discusses a similar point:

“And historically, the initial reaction of the market to a Republican presidential victory confirms this thesis. During the last 120 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7% on the day following a Republican victory in the presidential elections while it has fallen 0.5% the day after a Democrat captured the White House[.] However, a closer look tells a far different story. Over that same 120 year period, the average annual stock market return has totaled only 8.25% under Republican rule, while it has returned 10.85% with Democrats in power.”

To read the full article, click on Which Party Is Better for Stocks?


Lisa Smith says:

“The results of the study, while intriguing, remain inconclusive. While the numbers are certainly real, the correlation may be spurious. In their own words, the authors acknowledge that “it might just be the case that we have stumbled upon a variable that tests significantly even when there is actually no underlying relation between the presidency and the stock market.”

To read the full article, click on For Higher Stock Returns, Vote Republican Or Democrat?


A couple of websites keep on referencing this article:

  • The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market
  • Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov
  • The Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 1841-1872 (article consists of 32 pages)
  • Published by: Blackwell Publishing for the American Finance Association

Following is the abstract from JSTOR:

“The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidencies: 9 percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio. The difference comes from higher real stock returns and lower real interest rates, is statistically significant, and is robust in sub-samples. The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle variables related to expected returns, and is not concentrated around election dates. There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across presidencies that could justify a risk premium. The difference in returns through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.”

The rest of the article may be accessed by clicking on The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market.

Oct 082010
 
Share

L. William Seidman, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), mentioned in September of 1996 that “the banking problems of the 80s and 90s came primarily, but not exclusively, from unsound real estate lending.” He added, “the critical catalyst causing the institutional disruption around the world can be almost uniformly described by three words: real estate loans.” To read the entire report, click on Lessons of the Eighties: What Does the Evidence Show?. To view the entire symposium, click on History of the 80s: Volume II: Symposium Proceedings, January 16, 1997.


Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in a prepared statement to the U.S. Congress in April 2002 mentioned the following:

  • Because of deposit insurance (FDIC), “the market discipline to control risks that insured depositors would otherwise have imposed on banks and thrifts has been weakened. Relieved of that discipline, banks and thrifts naturally feel less inhibited from taking on more risk than they would otherwise assume. No other type of private financial institution is able to attract funds from the public without regard to the risk it takes with its creditors’ resources. This incentive to take excessive risks is the so-called moral hazard problem of deposit insurance, the inducement to take risk at the expense of the insurer.”
  • Current law allows the FDIC to raise premiums when it does not have enough insurance reserves and to lower, or eliminate premiums, when it has excess insurance reserves. “These requirements are clearly procyclical, lowering or eliminating fees in good times when bank credit is readily available and deposit insurance fund reserves should be built up, and abruptly increasing fees sharply in times of weakness when bank credit availability is under pressure and deposit fund resources are drawn down to cover the resolution of failed banks.”
  • The “Board rejects the notion that any bank is too big to fail.”
  • Consistent with this view, the market clearly believes that large institutions are not too big for uninsured creditors to take at least some loss. Spreads on large bank subordinated debt are wider than spreads on similar debt of large and highly rated nonbank financial institutions. Indeed, there are no AAA-rated U.S. banking organizations.”

To read the entire statement, click on Oversight Hearing on “The Federal Deposit Insurance System and Recommendations for Reform.”


The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed into law on November 12, 1999. Some of the provisions of the act follows:

  • Repeals the restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms contained in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act
  • Allows banks to continue to be active participants in the derivatives business for all credit and equity swaps (other than equity swaps to retail customers)

To read the entire act, click on GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT. To read a summary of provisions, click on Gramm-Leach-Bliley: Summary of Provisions.


To read the entire Glass-Steagall Act, also known as The Banking Act of 1933, signed into law during the Great Depression, click on Banking Act of 1933.


The Commodity Futures Modernization Act passed into law on December 21, 2000. Some of the provisions of the act follows:

  • Excludes specified banking products and swap agreements from Commodity Futures Exchange Commission coverage.

To read the entire act, click on Bill Summary & Status H.R.5660 or click on Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Oct 082010
 
Share

Thorsten Polleit from the Mises Institute in November 2005 illustrated the relationship between the money supply and inflation. To read the entire article, click on Why Money Supply Matters.

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Money Growth and Inflation in the Euro Area

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Money Growth and Inflation in Japan

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Money Growth and Inflation in the United States (US)

Oct 082010
 
Share

Lawrence H. White in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in 2008 writes that inflation is the ongoing rise in the general level of prices. Thus, the overall purchasing power of the monetary unit, such as the U.S. dollar, falls over time and buys less each year.

  • Economies on gold or silver standards sometimes experienced inflation, however, the inflation rate rarely surpassed 2% per year. Furthermore, over the course of centuries the inflation rate was close to 0%.
  • “Economies on paper-money standards, which all economies have today, have displayed much more inflation.”
  • Sustained inflation has historically always been due to the sustained increase in the money supply.
  • The rate of increase in the money supply, or monetary expansion, is the dominant factor for inflation. Countries with high money growth have high inflation. Money growth is not the growth of wealth, but the growth of the money supply (see above).
  • Similarly, decades with rapid money growth had high inflation.
  • “The dominance of money growth in accounting for inflation is especially pronounced in hyperinflation.”
  • To control inflation requires the central bank (the Federal Reserve is the central bank in the U.S.A.), which controls the money supply, “to refrain from expanding the money supply too rapidly”
  • For people that hold non-interest bearing money, for example in a bank account, inflation “subjects them to the equivalent of a higher tax on their money holdings.”
  • What is the optimal rate rate of inflation? One proposal is to achieve a zero nominal interest rate. Therefore, the inflation rate would be negative 2-3 percent annually.
  • Another proposal “favors zero inflation as the policy that minimizes uncertainty about future inflation, thereby best facilitating financial contracts; and that minimizes the distortions associated with unindexed taxes”
  • Another proposal “makes a case for falling prices in an economy with ongoing productivity improvements.” Therefore, it is beneficial to let prices fall as efficiency increases and using monetary expansion to raise other prices does not increase efficiency.

To read the entire article, click on Inflation.