For Immediate Release – June 27, 2008

Contact:

Dr. Kevin Barrett; 608-583-2132, kbarrett@merr.com

Rolf Lindgren; 608-279-5889, rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com

http://www.barrettforcongress.us

On Monday, June 30, Dr. Kevin Barrett will interview former Federal Reserve Board banker Harold ‘Hal’ Greenwood, on the Genesis Communications Network.

Hal Greenwood was appointed to the Federal Reserve Board by U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.

In 1968, Democrat Party Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey announced that if elected, he would appoint Greenwood to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Greenwood is a scholar of Federal Reserve Board history and has studied G. Edward Griffin’s book ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’.

Greenwood has not spoken out in public regarding the Federal Reserve in over two decades. He was initially scheduled to speak at the 2006 Libertarian Party of Wisconsin State Convention, but was unable to attend. Greenwood wants the American public to know the truth about the Federal Reserve System, and will reveal hithero unknown secrets for the first time.

Greenwood and Barrett will be on the air from 4 to 6 P.M. central time on Network 4.

Barrett’s program is called ‘The Dynamic Duo’.

Genesis Communications Network: http://gcnlive.com

Kevin Barrett’s Radio Schedule: http://www.barrettforcongress.us/airwaves.htm

“We should do something because the Constitution says so” because if the Constitution is not observed, then the government is all-powerful and can do whatever it wants.

Interestingly, the Constitution itself does not declare gold and silver legal tender, nor does it say that states MUST declare one or the other or both legal tender. A state could declare no legal tender whatsoever, and let the market decide. However, what would be done about taxation? If you want to abolish taxes, I’m fine with that, but if the state government needs to collect taxes, it needs to recognize something as money. Gold and/or silver have been recognized as money for millennia, and WERE recognized as the backing of our money (gold, at least) until 1971. The world has changed a lot since then, but has it undone 10,000 years of history in the past 37?

As for arguments from constitutionality, they are fundamentally legal, not political. The Constitution can be changed, and political parties and candidates are free to advocate such changes. Any political party or candidate that says, “We should do X because is the constitutional thing to do,” also needs to explain why the provisions of the Constitution in question should not be changed.

No.

A libertarian supports the right of individuals to use whatever “money” they want, so long as it is truthfully represented and mutually accepted.

A constitutionalist acknowledges that the Constitution does NOT give the federal government the power to declare legal tender, nor does it allow the states to declare anything other than gold and/or silver as legal tender, or to emit bills of credit.

An economic historian recognizes that while under free banking, anyone would be able to issue the money they wanted, historically, gold and silver have been the most widely accepted forms of “money,” and that is likely to be the case if we returned to free, non-coercive banking.

No “crackpottery.”

I am not a free market advocate, but as I understand it, the cogent free market position is that, among other things, money creation should be completely privatized and deregulated, which would mean that if banks (or you or I) want to issue credit money and people want to accept that money as payment for goods and services, so be it.

The cogent socialist position, on the other hand, is that the sort of boom/bust speculative cycles we’ve been seeing recently are an inevitable step in the decline of capitalism that cannot be cured by regulating or deregulating markets, only by replacing markets with another system of allocating resources.

All the other proposals I’ve seen — including the “gold standard” and “greenback” positions — are essentially reformist: We should keep regulating markets but do so differently.

Sometimes these positions are advocated as part of a comprehensive reformist program. In other cases, they are elevated to the level of panacea. That is where we get into crackpottery.

Can we please get a critique of the money system from people who actually understand the money system, as opposed to crackpot fetishists of the money commodity?

This is a huge positive development for the Freedom Movement.

Libertarian Party candidates need to take this ball and run with it.