The United States Should Withdraw From the International Monetary Fund

by Darrell Castle – Vice-Chairman Constitution Party National Committee

dscn0519Currently headquartered in Washington DC, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed in 1944 and finalized in 1945 as part of the Bretton Woods agreement made by the victorious Allied Powers at the end of WWII.

The IMF’s stated purposes are as follows:

  • To promote exchange rate stability;
  • To facilitate and manage the growth and balance of international trade;
  • To provide resources to member countries experiencing balance of payments problems;
  • To help maintain a multilateral system of payments;
  • And finally, to promote international monetary cooperation.

Despite its stated purposes, many people believe that the real purpose of the IMF is to bring poorer, less-industrialized countries into the orbit of global government and multinational corporations.

According to John Perkins in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, third world countries have been threatened with CIA destabilization and regime change unless they accept IMF loans. The loans are made with draconian repayment provisions like cutting social services, renegotiating union contracts and privatizing public services, which then allow foreign multinational corporations access to the country’s resources. Since these target countries often have their credit ratings downgraded, the loans also carry a very high interest rate.

Who funds the IMF or where does the “fund” in the IMF come from?

There are currently 187 IMF members, but the G-20 countries, meaning the top 20 economies, fund 71.21% of its revenue and the other 166 countries fund the other 28.79%. The United States share is 17.09% of the total. And Japan is second with 6.12%. Major decisions require an 85% super-majority to pass, and that makes the United States the only country that can block a super-majority on its own, because votes are commensurate with percentage of participation. The United States’ 17.09% allows it final veto over any major decision.

As most people know by now, the current head of the IMF – current at least until his recent resignation – French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was placed in a New York City jail after being charged with sexually assaulting a maid at his $3000 a night suite in the Midtown Manhattan Sofitel. Could DSK, as he is affectionately known by his friends, make do with a $600-per-night room at the Ritz? No way, nothing but the best will do for the head of the IMF and the most likely candidate to replace Nicholas Sarkozy as President of France.

The maid who has accused DSK of rape is a West African immigrant with a 15-year-old daughter. Perhaps DSK reasoned that since the IMF has been raping her former continent for decades, what difference could one more rape make?

This sordid mess is made worse by the fact that the IMF, like most of its member states, usually runs a negative balance sheet, leaving in doubt which party will pay for the damage. In 2009, the IMF sold 200 tons of gold to close a deficit in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. Who will pay for DSK’s latest (alleged) debauchery besides himself?

Who will pay for DSK’s legal defense? The IMF has announced that it will sell some gold to cover that. The maid has a lawyer in addition to the NYC prosecutor’s office. I trust it will also sell enough gold to cover the several million that a NYC jury is likely to eventually award his victim.

The taxpayers of the United States should not be on the hook for one penny of his defense, damages, or even his $3000 per night hotel suite. In fact, if the political leadership of the United States had an ounce of decency left, it would announce the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the IMF. Tragically, they do not and thus will not.

Protecting Citizens’ Privacy Resolution

by the Constitution Party National Committee – March 2002 – Charleston, South Carolina

Whereas, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…but upon probable cause…” and

Whereas, the Federal government’s collection, compiling, and abuse of databases to snoop on law-abiding citizens is rapidly expanding. This includes monitoring law-abiding citizens’ bank deposits, cell phone usage, e-mail, air travel, school children, lawful gun purchases, health care, medical records, immunizations, fingerprints, DNA, and genetic tests. Most often, these databases are built using the Social Security number, and

Whereas, there are renewed attempts by the Federal government, especially since 9/11, to impose a Federal ID on all citizens requiring States to have social security numbers on Drivers’ Licenses. The federal government often accomplishes the establishment of a database through mandates and grants to the State, and

Whereas, corporations are also involved in the collection and selling of personal data without consent. The Social Security Act stipulates that the social security number is never to be used for identification purposes. Therefore let it be

Resolved, that the Constitution Party supports the protection of a citizen’s privacy rights and opposes the use of the social security number for identification purposes and any attempt to create and impose a national ID.

State Model Emergency Health Powers Act Resolution

by the Constitution Party National Committee – March 2002 – Charleston, South Carolina

Whereas, the Bush administration and the Federal government are promoting the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) for enactment by the fifty states, which completely eliminates the safeguard of separation of powers and checks and balances. The MEHPA makes the governor a dictator, taking all powers of government including legislative, executive, and judicial, and

Whereas, the MEHPA only allows the State Legislature to take action by a super majority vote sixty days after the governor declares a health emergency, and

Whereas, the Legislature can only take action “upon finding that the occurrence of an illness or health condition that caused the emergency does not or no longer poses” a threat, which is extremely limiting, and

Whereas, under MEHPA state and local health officers, along with Governors, are granted dictatorial levels of power with no appeals process to remedy their unilateral decisions to force people to receive medical treatment, vaccines, be isolated, quarantined; otherwise to be charged with a misdemeanor and possibly end up in jail, and

Whereas, the MEHPA provides no religious or conscientious objections to medical treatment and vaccines, and

Whereas, in MEHPA there is no recognition of parent’s rights and responsibilities with regard to their children. This is important when you consider that people possibly might be quarantined separately from their children, and

Whereas, the MEHPA allows government to confiscate private property including food, fuel and clothing, and if so, without just compensation, and

Whereas, alternative health options are completely left out of the MEHPA. There should be recognition that alternatives to standard medical treatments and vaccines, etc., are available, often highly effective and far less dangerous, and

Whereas, the MEHPA provides for the collection of personal medical information, DNA, tests, etc., the privacy of which is not protected. MEHPA provides that the information will be turned over to the Federal government and used for research and end up in state and federal databases. This is a serious breach of our Fourth Amendment search, seizure, and privacy rights. Therefore, let it be

Resolved, that the Constitution Party opposes all versions of the State Model Emergency Health Powers Act.

Center for Disease Control Assault on Gun Rights Resolution

 by the Constitution Party National Committee – March 2002 – Charleston, South Carolina

Whereas, there is a new threat to gun rights that is now being pushed through state legislatures called the 2001 “National Strategy for Suicide Prevention” (NSSP) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Surgeon General, and the Center for Disease Control, and

Whereas, this initiative is traceable to the 1993 United Nations World Health Organization Conference, and

Whereas, Goal Five of the NSSP, “Promote Efforts to Reduce Access to Lethal Means and Methods of Self-Harm,” states “If intervention is not possible when an individual is in a state of psychological pain, a self-destructive act may be prevented by limiting the individual’s access to the means or methods of self-harm…it may connote redesigning or altering the existing lethal means of self-harm currently available, and to others eliminating or limiting their availability…” and

Whereas, the report says that 57% of suicides are committed with guns, and “between 45-50 percent of all U.S. households have a firearm inside the home…” and

Whereas, Objective 5.2 of the NSSP states “By 2005, expose a proportion of households to public information campaign(s) designed to reduce the accessibility of lethal means, including firearms in the home”. Therefore be it

Resolved, that the Constitution Party recognizes this new threat to constitutionally protected gun rights and that the Constitution Party opposes any and all infringements of the God-given right to keep and bear arms.