PDA

View Full Version : Paper money is constitutional money



buff
1st December 2006, 10:14
Paper money is constitutional money. Please review the case of Julliard V. Greeman (1884) that has established as settled law the power of the federal government to print money as an implied power of the constitution.

Ardent Listener
1st December 2006, 20:07
Paper money is constitutional money. Please review the case of Julliard V. Greeman (1884) that has established as settled law the power of the federal government to print money as an implied power of the constitution.

Here it is for discussion.


Julliard vs. Greenman- 1884

GRAY, J.... The act of May 31st, 1878 ch. 146, under which the notes in question were reissued, is entitled "An act to forbid the further retirement of United States legal tender notes," and enacts as follows:
"From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury or other officer under him to cancel or retire any more of the United States legal tender notes. And when any of said notes may be redeemed or be received into the Treasury under any law from any source whatever and shall belong to the United States, they shall not be retired
cancelled or destroyed, but they shall be reissued and paid out again and kept in
circulation: Provided, That nothing herein shall prohibit the cancellation and destruction of mutilated notes and the issue of other notes of like denomination in their stead, as now provided by law. All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed."
The manifest intention of this act is that the notes which it directs, after having been redeemed, to be reissued and kept in circula tion, shall retain their original quality of being a legal tender. The single question, therefore, to be considered, . . .is whether notes of the United States, issued in time of war, under acts of Congress declaring them to be a legal
tender in payment of private debts, and afterwards in time of peace redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, and then reissued under the act of 1878, can, under the Constitution of the United States, be a legal tender in payment of such debts. . .
The breadth and comprehensiveness of the words of the Constitution are nowhere more strikingly exhibited than in regard to the powers, over the subjects of revenue, finance, and currency, of which there is no other express grant than may be found in these few brief clauses:
"The Congress shall have poweró
"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States. "
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. "
"To coin money, regulate the value, thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."
The section which contains the grant of these and other principal legislative powers- ]
Includes by declaring that the Congress shall have poweró
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof." . .
The power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States" is the power to raise money for the public use on a pledge of the public credit, and may be exercised to meet either present or anticipated expenses and liabilities of the government. It includes the power to issue in return for the money borrowed, the obligations of the United States in any appropriate form, of stock, bonds, bills or notes; and in whatever form they are issued, being instruments ot the national government, they are exempt from taxation by the governments of the several States. Congress has authority to issue these obligations in a form adapted to circulation from hand to hand in the ordinary transactions of commerce and business. In order to promote and facilitate such circulation, to adapt them to use as currency, and to make them more current in the market, it may provide for their redemption in coin or bonds, and may make them receivable in payment of debts to the government. So much is settled beyond doubt, and was asserted or distinctly admitted by the judges who dissented from the decision in the Legal Tender Gases, as well as by those who concurred in that decision....
The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a currency for the whole country is now firmly established....
By the Constitution of the United States, the several States are prohibited from coming money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to Congress either of these powers.... The
tates are forbidden, but Congress is expressly authorized, to coin money. The States are prohibited from emitting bills of credit; but Congress, which is neither expressly authorized nor expressly forbidden to do so as, as we have already seen, been held to have the power of emitting bills of credit, and of making every provision for their circulation as currency, short of giving them equality of legal tender for private debts,even by those who have denied its authority to give them this quality.

It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary consequence, that Congress has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts, as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power, as incident to the power of borrowing money and issuing bills or notes of the government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States.. .
. . . The power of issuing bills of credit, and making them, at the discretion of the legislature, a tender in payment of private debts, had long been exercised in this country by the several colonies and States; and during the Revolutionary War the States, upon the recommendation of the Congress of the Confederation, had made the bills issued by Congress a legal tender. The exercise of this power not being prohibited to Congress by the Constitution, it is included in the power expressly granted to borrow money on the credit of the United States
This position is fortified by the fact that Congress is vested with the exclusive exercise of the analogous power of coining money and regulating the value of domestic and foreign coin, and also with the paramount power of regulating foreign and interstate commerce. Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency
udder the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers taken together, Congress is au|horized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.
The power of making the notes of the
United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, being included in the power to borrow money and to provide a national currency, is not defeated or restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of private contracts. If, upon a just and fair interpretation of the whole Constitution, a particular power or authority appears to be vested in Congress, it is no constitutional objection to its existence, or to its exercise, that the property or the contracts of individuals may be incidentally affected. . .
So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the Act of June 28th, l834, c. 95, and with regard to silver by the Act of February 28th, 1878, c. 20), issue coins of the same denominations as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value. A contract to pay a certain sum in money, without any stipulation as to the kind of money in which it shall be paid, may always be satisfied by payment of that sum in any currency which is lawful money at the place and time at which payment is to be made....
Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution, "to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and "to borrow money on the credit of the United Sates," and "to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin; " and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of those great powers, to emit bills of credit, to charter national banks, and to provide a national currency for the whole people, in the form of coin, treasury notes, and national bank bills; and the power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution, we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate
means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore, within the meaning of that instrument, "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."
Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question whether at any particular time, in war or in peace, the execution is such by reason of unusual and pressing demands on the resources of the government, or of the inadequacy of the supply of gold and silver coin to furnish the currency needed for the uses of the government and of the
people, that it is, as matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to this means, is a
political question, to be determined by Congress when the question of exigency arises,
and not a judicial question, to be afterwards passed upon by the courts....
It follows that the act of May 31, 1878 ch. 146, is constitutional and valid, and that he circuit court rightly held that the tender in treasury notes, reissued and kept in circulation under that act, was a tender of lawful Honey in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
FIELD, J., delivered a dissenting opinion.

Ardent Listener
1st December 2006, 20:32
www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/research/money-what-is-it.shtml - 84k


Money

What is it?



Of all the incredible stupidities in the world -- of which many have been revealed to me since the LORD graciously appeared to me 10 years ago (which thing He did for His own good reasons, and certainly not because of any particular merit on my part) -- of all these stupidities, few can compare to that of of man putting his trust in "money". Why, most people don't even know what "money" is!


I swear by the Father who said "you can't serve God and Mammon" that if you really knew what money was, you'd want no part of it.

I want no part of it.


The "smart Alec" at this point will surely be saying "Fine! If you don't want your money, please, give it to me!" Ha ha, that's very funny, and very clever. But "Alec" doesn't know what he's talking about.


What is money? The simplest answer is: "an illusion".


When you've finished this document, you'll realize that:




Money, at least in its current form, has no value.

Our current "financial system" is a carbon-copy of previous financial systems which are proven failures. These systems generate large amounts of "money" for the short-run, but in the long-run the nation is ruined.




So where are we? In the United States, in the late 20th century, we are in the final phase of the "long-run", i.e., we are essentially "ruined". But the politicians won't stop until the ruin is total. Unless, that is, you stop them.





Three types of money




It is generally considered, by writers on the subject, that there are three basic types of money in the world:



Type 1: "Real" wealth, usually measured in gold and silver,

Type 2: Pieces of paper which claim to represent real wealth (i.e., bullion-backed paper money such as gold & silver certificates, etc.), and

Type 3: pieces of paper which represent nothing at all, but which an oppressive government will force you to accept as "money" (called "fiat" money).




As a general rule, type 1 economies are healthy and prosperous. I didn't say "trouble-free"! No system of any sort in this world is "trouble-free".


As a general rule, type 2 economies are associated with fraud, since the obvious first purpose of pretending that pieces of paper are "money" is to have the possibility of creating the illusion that there's more "money" than there really is.


Type 3 economies are associated with theft, because the disappearance of all the bullion invariably means that it's been stolen or misappropriated.


Although the Constitution explicitly forbids it, the United States went recklessly from type 1 to type 2 money long ago, and we are now irreversibly entrenched in type 3; namely, pieces of paper which represent nothing at all. What does this mean? It means that our complete net worths can be erased any minute of any day. And I can assure you, they will be before long.


There is a day of reckoning coming, when you will wake up to find that your life savings have been devalued, and that you've become worthless. [To read a true life story of one woman who woke up to just such a nightmare during the Russian Revolution, click here].


On that day, if you haven't boarded this "Ark of Salvation", you will be forced to do whatever the bankers demand. Unless you want to starve to death, that is.



"Legal tender"
Type 1 ... Gold and Silver Coins




The United States Constitution demands (to this day) that the only "legal tender" in this country be gold and silver coin (look up: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).


Few Americans are aware of this fact. To most, the thought of a currency consisting of only coins seems like a very strange idea, or perhaps a joke. But it's no joke. The Founding Fathers put this into the Constitution for a very good reason, which we shall examine shortly.


What is "legal tender"? This means the form of money which you are entitled to demand, under the law, as payment of debts. Thus, gold coins are legal tender--if you can find any!


But things like television sets, automobile tires and chickens, are not. If someone wants to pay you in chickens, and you agree, then all's well. But you can't be forced to accept chickens as payment of a debt. You can be forced to accept gold coins. If you can find any!


Bankers hate gold and silver coins, except the ones in their pockets. Why? Because gold and silver coins give you value, and they want all the value for themselves. Please, don't hate bankers! Deep down inside, we're just like them! Only they're better at it than we are.



"Legal tender"
Type 2 ... Paper Gold and Silver "Certificates"




What about systems employing "type 2" money, i.e., pieces of paper which claim to represent gold and silver? How do they work?


In a "type 2" system, some or all of the gold and silver is removed from circulation, and left in "reserve" in a safe location. In its place, paper appears.


Thus, if the United States has $1 trillion in gold and silver in Fort Knox (which it doesn't, believe it or not), then the government can leave all the gold and silver in the Fort, and issue instead $1 trillion in "gold certificates" and "silver certificates": pieces of paper (i.e., "legal tender" or "money") which represent--or claim to represent--the real gold and silver locked up in the Fort.


Those of you who are old enough to remember the Great Depression will, without a doubt, remember the gold certificates which the government forced you to accept in exchange for your real gold. In earlier times, those certificates (which have long since been removed from circulation) could be brought to the bank any time, and gold coins received in exchange for them.


Those of you who were of mature age in the 1970's will undoubtedly remember that back then, a dollar bill was called a "silver certificate". You could bring it to the bank and exchange it for silver coins, any time. Now both the silver certificates and the silver coins are gone. (What happened to all that gold and silver? Click here to find out what the response was, when this question was asked in Federal Court.)


The trouble with systems employing type 2 "money" is that people are greedy. Without exception, every nation which has used type 2 money has printed more paper bills than there were gold and silver coins behind them. Thus, if Fort Knox had $1 trillion in gold (which, again, it doesn't!), the government would sooner or later succumb to the temptation to print $2 trillion, or $3 trillion, or even more, in paper.


Everything's fine, as long as everyone doesn't run to the bank simultaneously for "their gold". But sooner or later, something will scare people, and they will indeed "run on the bank". Then the system collapses, because there's simply not enough gold and silver to pay on all those certificates.


That's exactly what happened in 1933. In the midst of the Great Depression, there was a nationwide "run on the bank". Why? Because there was a rumor abroad that all the gold was going to "disappear", which, in fact, is exactly what happened. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a loyal bank servant, dutifully removed all the gold from circulation at that point. (This was the culmination of a plan which was many, many years in the making; it didn't just "happen").


In that year, 1933, all citizens of the United States were ordered -- under threat of severe fine and imprisonment -- to hand in their gold, in exchange for a piece of paper called a "gold certificate". It looked just like a dollar bill looks today, except it said "Gold Certificate" at the top, and it said "IN GOLD COIN PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" at the bottom.


What?? What sort of nonsense is this? I just told you people were ordered, at pain of $10,000 fine (a king's ransom during the Depression) and 10 years in prison, to hand over their gold! So what does it mean to tell the same people who had just been fleeced, that any old day of the week they could stoll over to the bank with their paper "money" and get their gold back? If a bank teller had accidentally given you gold, and you got caught on the way out the door, you and the teller would go straight to jail!


This was neither the beginning of fraud, nor the beginning of treason in our banking system, but it was the most overt, unabashed example of it in our history up to that time.


Later on, all the gold coins, and the gold "certificates", were replaced by other pieces of paper called "silver certificates". What a joke! If there wasn't enough gold to back the currency, how in the world could there have been enough silver? We were simply moving along the pathway of out-and-out fraud, and we have only gotten worse as time has passed.



"Legal tender"
Type 3... Fiat Paper "Money"




What about "type 3" money, where the government declares that "money" is pieces of paper which have no value whatsoever? That, my friends, is where you are right now. Your money is intrinsically worthless.


In the early 1970's, the last scrap of silver was removed from the lawful treasuries of the United States, into the vaults of private bankers. Our "silver certificates" were replaced by "Federal Reserve Notes", which cannot be redeemed at all. They're nothing but plain paper, and there's nothing behind them.


If you're searching for a reason why you're getting poorer and poorer, and why your dollars buy less and less, look no farther. You've just read the reason.




As long as people trust in these Federal Reserve Notes, they will have "purchasing power". The minute people lose confidence in them, however, they become transformed back into plain paper, with no "purchasing power" at all; worthy of nothing but the trash can. Not a good situation! If you are wise, you will get on the "Ark of Salvation", because that is really your only hope.



"People think that the basis of money is gold. They are wrong. The basis of money is debt"



The above statement, generally attributed to the Rothschilds, expresses a simple but immensely important truth. It is the core reality of the current world banking system, and it invariably leads to pure fraud. If you learn nothing else about money, learn the meaning of the above quote! The following example will illustrate the concept.


Imagine, if you will, that you borrow $1000 from a friend. You agree to pay him back after exactly one year, and you agree further to pay him 10% interest. So he gives you $1000 now, and a year later you pay him back $1,100. Simple enough?


Now, he'll undoubtedly ask you to sign for the loan. The piece of paper you sign is called a promissory note. It is your promise to pay back the loan, plus the interest.


Now think about this: that promissory note has value. Do you doubt it? If your friend comes upon hard times, he can sell that note, can he not? Sure he can! As long as you are "good for the money", that note is worth its "face value" of $1000, plus the $100 additional you agreed to pay as interest. So it's potentially worth $1,100.


Whoever holds that note is in a position to collect that $1,100! It most assuredly has value.


Your friend would have a hard time selling it for the full $1,100, but if he plays his cards right, he can probably get more than $1000, because it's worth more than $1000. Suppose, for example, a buyer pays $1,050 for the note. At the end of the year, God willing, he'll collect the full $1,100. That's $50 more than he paid for it. So, without doing any work, he makes a fast $50. What's wrong with that?!


The only risk is that you might fail to pay back the loan. So, in any sale of a promissory note, there's risk. The better you are as a credit risk, however, the more your promissory note will be worth.


In case you're not aware of it, know that the world is full of promissory notes, and that most of them do, in fact, get sold. Loan agreements are promissory notes, mortgage agreements are promissory notes, and even charge card slips are promissory notes. It is said, by those who pay attention to such things, that if you pay off a home mortgage, and demand to have your promissory note returned to you, the bank will do so. What you will see is that it is literally covered with endorsement stamps, each one attesting to the fact that it was bought and sold, repeatedly throughout its "life".


Speculators from many nations participate in this process. These promissory notes are most assuredly considered highly desirable, and by the time they are paid off in full, they have traveled literally "around the world"!


So I hope you can see that a promissory note has value. But is it "money"?



How to package a promissory note to make it look like "money"



Have you ever seen a United States Savings Bond? U.S. Savings Bonds are among the commonest forms of gifts for "life cycle" events, namely weddings, Baptisms, Bar Mitzvahs, etc. (The way things are going in this godless country, they'll probably soon be given as "gifts" to celebrate your divorce).


What is a U.S. Savings Bond? It is a promissory note packaged to look a lot like "money". When you buy it, however, you pay less than the face value. That's why people like to give them as gifts. A $100 bond makes a nice-looking gift, but it only costs the giver $80 or so. (The price depends upon the prevailing interest rate).


That money, the $80, is a loan from you to the government. They will take your money and invest it. The government, being the most leveraged investor of all, will make a lot of money on your loan, and they will therefore be able to pay you back with interest, and still be "ahead of the game". When the bond "matures", you will be able to "cash it in" for the full $100. The government, of course, will have made more than $100 on your money, but what's that to you? Don't "look the gift horse in the mouth". They made money, you made money. Everyone ought to be happy.


Now, think of what a U.S. Savings Bond looks like. It looks a lot like money, does it not? Suppose you owed a man $100, and your business had just failed, and you had no cash to pay the man. If you had a mature $100 U.S. Savings Bond, the man just might accept the bond as payment for the loan. In fact, if he needed money fast, then even if the bond had not matured fully, he still might accept it, especially if he thought that he couldn't collect any money from you otherwise.


U.S. Savings Bonds look like money, and they act like money. But they're not "legal tender". Why? Because you can't force anyone to accept them as payment of debts. The acceptance in the example above was voluntary.


Hmmm... Any government, wanting to expand its currency, and knowing these facts about promissory notes, might well ask the following question: "How can we FORCE the citizens of our nation to accept our promissory notes as if they were real money"? Think about this: the government is continually borrowing money, re-paying old loans, and borrowing new money all over again. Each loan transaction generates a promissory note. If the government could somehow, by some subterfuge, find a way to package these promissory notes to make them look like money, and circulate them as such, then the government could be awash in new money, created without the need to mine gold, operate businesses, or raise taxes. What a deal! More money, no work!


So how do you do it? In the nineteenth century, the American government asked just that question. You'll be astonished, and dismayed, at the answer they came up with.



The Civil War: paper money is introduced to America



To get the people to accept promissory notes as "money", you first have to get them to accept paper. Remember, in the United States, the only lawful currency was (and is) "gold and silver coin".


The Civil War gave the government the excuse it needed to begin experimenting with paper.


Although the Civil War ended slavery, which is a good thing, it must be noted that no other western nation has slavery either. England freed her slaves before us, and they did it without a war. We were the only nation which needed a Civil War to end slavery. Was this war really necessary? In other portions of this Web Site we have made brief mention of some of the evils behind the facade of "good" which cloaks the true history of the Civil War.


Abraham Lincoln needed money to finance his war. The bankers offered him large quantities of money at interest rates so exhorbitant that he said:




"I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe".




Wow! Now there's a new perspective on the Civil War!


Lincoln told the bankers to go to hell. He printed his own money! These bills, which had nothing behind them except Lincoln's solemn promise to redeem them in gold after the war (which he did do, in fact), were called "Greenbacks". They circulated, and the people accepted them. Amazing! Don't forget that the only "money" circulating in America at that time was gold and silver coin. The acceptance, by the people, of pieces of government paper masquerading as money, was an enormous vote of confidence in the integrity of the government. Of course, this sort of "trust" in the government is easier to elicit when there's a war going on.


So what's wrong with printing Greenbacks? Two things:




The Constitution forbids any legal tender except gold and silver coin. If any provision of the Constitution is flagrantly violated--for any reason--then an evil precedent is established.


Paper money is inflationary. The economists all agree that the dumping of unbacked paper money into the marketplaces causes all prices to rise.



The printing of Greenbacks caused the bankers to burn with rage! Their plan had been to gouge America with high-interest loans. Now their money was no longer needed!


It is alleged by many that John Wilkes Booth was a bank agent, and I wouldn't doubt it. We'll probably never know for sure.


During the Civil War, the bankers ranted and railed against Lincoln in the newspapers, emphasizing that the Greenbacks were unconstitutional and inflationary. What hypocracy! Wait until you see what the bankers did when they finally got the power to print money (see below).


In any event, after the war, some, or perhaps all, of the Greenbacks, were "retired". This means that people brought them back to the banks, and--true to Lincoln's word--the banks exchanged them for real gold and silver coins.


But apparently the Greenbacks were not all destroyed. In 1878, a "law" was passed which brought them back out! In other words, the government, seeing an opportunity to "expand the currency", seized the moment and did so.


Think about what this means: These Greenbacks, pieces of intrinsically worthless paper, were sitting there in dark vaults, doing nothing. Then, by a highly questionable act of Congress, the Greenbacks were taken out of "retirement" and re-issued as "money"! Thus, without raising taxes, or doing any work at all, or mining any gold at all, the government gave itself millions of dollars worth of new "money". What a deal!


If you were a government employee, you could have suddenly found yourself being paid in Greenbacks. You did real work, but the government paid you in paper which it did not work for! There are many who would say that that wasn't fair, and that it wasn't right, other than according to the ancient maxim "might makes right".


The Greenback scam was generally accepted by the people of America without protest. But not entirely without protest. Some people were furious. One of these was a man named Mr. Julliard, who sold a Mr. Greenman 100 bales of cotton for $5,122.90. When it came time to pay, Greenman coughed up $22.50 in gold, $0.40 in silver, and $5,100.00 in U.S. notes (i.e., Greenbacks)! Julliard refused to accept the paper. He sold real cotton, not a paper imitation, and he wanted real money in return, not paper play-money. Greenman refused to pay.


The case went to the Supreme Court (Julliard v. Greenman ,110 U.S. 421) (1884). The decision of that court was a major landmark in the history of destruction of your constitutional rights. Some dare call it "treason". I'm inclined to agree. You'll have to decide for yourself.


The issue in Julliard v. Greenman was whether the un-backed paper notes of the U.S. federal government, which were masquerading as "money", could be considered a "legal tender". Remember that the phrase "legal tender" refers to that which you can be FORCED to accept as payment of debts. Are unbacked government "notes", i.e., pieces of paper with nothing behind them except a promise to someday redeem them in gold (a promise which is very unlikely to ever be kept), a form of "legal tender"? The Supreme Court was asked to decide.


As the text of the Court's decision makes clear, the law was hardly considered in this case. The real consideration at hand was that the United States, in 1884, was becoming a "world power", and needed money for imperialist expansion. This "world power" business was intoxicating stuff, causing those who believed in it to lose site of what America was, and what the word "freedom" really meant.


As you have probably already guessed, the court decided in favor of Julliard. That is, the court declared that the government's paper was, indeed, "money", and that no American had the right to refuse to accept it as such!


Thus, in a land whose Constitution forbids---to this day--any form of "legal tender" other than gold and silver coins, worthless paper money suddenly was thrust upon us. On that day, the floodgates of tyranny were very quietly opened. It's over a hundred years later now, and those floodgates -- now hanging wide open like a gaping surgical wound -- can no longer be closed "quietly".


How did the court justify this wanton attack upon the Constitution? They justified it on the grounds of "sovereignty".




Who's in charge here?




"Sovereign" means "King". Up until the Julliard vs. Greenman case, the Supreme Court openly declared that in the United States, "the people" are collectively "sovereign". We have no King!


Don't forget that the single, all-encompassing philosophical basis of the American Revolution was the REJECTION of the belief that men had to live under a "King". Was it not?


Isn't that what you were taught in school? Isn't that what they still teach in school?


Well, guess what: that's not true anymore, and it hasn't been true since 1884, the year the Supreme Court ever-so-quietly announced that the federal government is your "sovereign". That means, in effect, your "King". So in the "land of the free, home of the brave", a King was made in 1884. You didn't know that, did you?




America gets a new "King"





Here's how they did it. In the first place, they (i.e., the Supreme Court panel of judges which presided over the Julliard vs. Greenman case) noted that even though the Constitution forbids any form of "money" other than gold and silver coins in the various states, it did not forbid other forms of money in federal transactions.


And that's true: the federal government indeed has the right to pay anyone in any way it pleases, as long as the transaction is legal, and as long as the other party agrees. But it has to be voluntary!


This means, for example, that if America buys something from France, the deal can be paid for with any piece of paper, or any other commodity which France is willing to accept. The federal government does not have to limit itself to gold and silver in its own transactions.


However, the court admitted that this does not entitle the government to force you to accept their notes. You are an American, supposedly with full constitutional rights. In your case, acceptance of the government's notes is supposed to be voluntary. Those notes are not "legal tender" in this country!


Next, the court noted that the Constitution (in Article I, section 8, clauses 1 & 2) gave the Congress the power to 'lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the United States', and to 'borrow money on the credit of the United States'. Remember what we said above about "promissory notes"? Please keep that in mind as you read.


The Supreme Court noted the following:




"[The power to] borrow money on the credit of the United States ... includes the power to issue, in return for the money borrowed, the obligations [i.e., promissory notes] of the United States in any appropriate form, of stock, bonds, bills or notes...Congress has authority to issue these obligations in a form adapted to circulation from hand to hand in the ordinary transactions of commerce and business" [110 U.S. 421 at 444-5].





Do you understand what this means? Now do you see why we spent so much time talking about the packaging of promissory notes to make them look like "money"? Keep in mind that promissory notes have value.


So, what the court is saying here is that the United States has the right to package all their promissory notes in a form which has the external appearance of "money", and to use these notes as if they were "money". BUT -- they can still do this only in transactions where the parties accept them WILLINGLY. They are still not "legal tender", and you -- the American citizen living under the protection of the Constitution -- still cannot be forced to accept them as payment. It's still voluntary.


The "score" so far: The government has correctly asserted its right to issue pieces of paper which look like money, and which have nothing behind them except somebody's promise to pay back a loan of some sort. These pieces of paper can, indeed, be used in any federal transaction in which the parties voluntarily accept them as payment. But we still do not have a legal basis for the court to order YOU to accept them, because under the U.S. Constitution, they are NOT "legal tender". The only legal tender in this country is still gold and silver coin. How is the Court going to get around the Constitution?


Here's the answer. Read it and weep. Weep for yourself, for me, for our children, and for our grandchildren. For it was the beginning of the end of "freedom" in America, and the end of freedom in America shall be the end of freedom in the world:




"It appears to us (i.e., the justices of that corrupt court) ... that Congress has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency ... as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power ... of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution of the United States." [110 U.S. 421 at 447]





What's this?! "Universally" understood to belong to "sovereignty" in America?! Since when does America have a "sovereign"? Did they teach you this in school?


And what's this business about "universal" understanding? I, for one, have no such understanding. What this lying Court is saying that our government can do whatever it wants, because the Kings of Europe did whatever they wanted, and our government now proposes to seize all those powers for itself.


So we fought a war to rid ourselves of the monarchy, universally understood to be an evil institution. Then, a slim 100 years later, our highest court had the audacity to tell us that the federal government intended to seize, for itself, all the powers of a "King"!


Amazingly, it was only two years earlier that this very same court, the Supreme Court of the United States, made the following comment in another case:

"Under our system the people, who are there [i.e., in Europe] called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him." [United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208-9]


So, in 1882 the Supreme Court of the United States said that YOU, the people, were collectively the "sovereign" here, and that you could not be forced to yield to the perverted desires of any would-be dictator in the government.


In 1884, however, the same court said that the government was indeed your "sovereign" after all, and could do whatever it damned-well pleased! What went wrong? What changed between 1882 and 1884?


Simply this: the government, whose appetite for money was whetted to a fever frenzy by its desire for imperial expansion, tossed all common sense and decency to the winds. The law was forgotten. The American Revolution was forgotten. The principles of decency underlying this nation were all tossed out at once. It was the beginning of the end of freedom.


All that remained was the adoption of the "British system" of banking. Let us now see how Britain raised money to build its Empire, and how the Bank of England turned that nation into a whorehouse of special privilege. Let us see also how the life of that system was limited by a strict time-clock, the seeds of its own destruction having been sown right into itself at the outset.


By way of a "preview", or a "coming attractions", know that in 1913, America adopted the "British system". Therefore, we are now on the same strict time-clock. Where do you think we are right now? We're at the end! The benefits of the "British system" have all been reaped, and have accrued, as usual, to the rich. You will now be left "holding the bag".




Introducing the Bank "of England"




I don't know who, or what, the Bank of England represents at the present time. But I certainly know what it represented when it started.


It is not disputed that the man who dreamed up the idea for the Bank was one William Paterson, a Scotsman. William Paterson is even credited with being the founder of the so-called "central banking" system by the public literature of our own Federal Reserve Bank, a clone of the original Bank of England.


It seems highly probable that William Paterson was the inspiration behind the Disney character "Scrooge McDuck"--a man (or should I say "duck") so rich, he literally oozed money whenever he moved.


But who was William Paterson? It's hard to say. He has no entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I can locate no biography of him in any library. Even in a recent book extolling the virtues of history's great Scotsmen ("Mark of the Scots", by Duncan A. Bruce), there is barely any mention of this one.


But great he was, albeit in a fundamentally negative sense.


Several months after the chartering of the Bank of England, William Paterson's name disappeared from the pages of history. As far as I can tell, nothing is known about him other than what you are about to read.




Paterson: The Original "Daddy War Bucks"




In 1694, the King of England, King William of Orange, needed money to wage war against France.


The King put out the word that the super-rich of England should forthwith submit plans to finance the war, and ministers were appointed to evaluate their submissions. The plan eventually accepted was the one submitted by our friend, William Paterson.


Patterson's total plan was audacious, to say the least. The first part was simple: he proposed lending the Crown £1.2 million at 8% interest annually. Can you believe that a war could be waged for £1.2 million? Seems incredible, does it not? In the United States today, you'd be lucky if you could install a new bathroom in the White House for under $1 million!


Next, the plan proposed that the principal did not have to be paid back on any particular time schedule, or, for that matter, at all. Not ever! This was a plan for "perpetual interest", that phrase being, in fact, part of the title of the plan which Paterson submitted.


Now the King undoubtedly believed that the loan would be paid off soon enough. But the fact of history is that it never was. Read on.


The next part of the plan was the most "clever". Paterson and his group of investors demanded the right to "keep their bills current". Hmmm. What does that mean?


In books about the Bank of England, one can find highly amusing quotes from members of Parliament, expressing perplexity about the meaning of this phrase "keep their bills current". "It seems", some of them protested, "that Mr. Paterson intends his bank to be a 'bank of issue'...".


What's a "bank of issue" you ask? A "bank of issue" is a bank which prints its own money. Nice work if you can get it!


The privilege of printing money was, up until that time, limited to the Crown. Now a private bank was asking for the same privilege. In the Yiddish language, that's called "chuzpah". It means brazen audacity.


If you are puzzled, believe me, so was Parliament. But they approved the plan, proving themselves to be every bit as irresponsible as the Congress of America today.


Now, here's how the historians explain the true meaning of Paterson's plan. What he was asking for was the right to package the Crown's promissory notes in the form of money, and to lend them out at 8% interest!


Recall that Paterson and his fellow conspirators loaned the Crown £1.2 million. Naturally, the King (or one of his ministers) had to sign for the loan. We have already seen how promissory notes have value. Patterson recognized that. He was probably not the first. But he was, perhaps, the first to have the audacity to ask the King for permission to write up the promissory notes so that they looked like "money".


Furthermore, these notes apparently had, inscribed upon them, words to the effect that they were "backed by the Crown". What's wrong with this picture?


If the Crown had money to back these notes, then why was it borrowing? In fact, the Crown was bankrupt. Yet the King agreed to the issuing of new, unbacked pseudo-money, which was "legitimized" by the illusion that it was "backed by the Crown", when, in fact, the Crown was in no position to back anything. In other words, this was a fraud at the outset, made legal only by the sovereign immunity of the King from prosecution by his own courts.


The King, attracted by the "easy credit terms" (i.e., no principal payments, interest only), went for it. What a deal for Paterson! He loaned £1.2 million at 8% interest perpetually, which meant that after the twelfth year, he began to make a perpetual profit. Additionally, he got to lend out an additional £1.2 million of imaginary money, consisting of the King's promissory notes packaged to look like real money. Patterson loaned out this imitation money at 8% interest also, and, if I grasp this history correctly, he demanded re-payment in gold. What a deal!


The King apparently never payed the loan back. Quite the contrary. In subsequent years, the King came back for more. Why not? The loan re-payments were interest only. That meant that for £640,000 per year, he could, in any year, receive £8,000,000 to play with! The interest payment seemed small -- at first.


The principal sum, however, was a lot of money in those days, and it gave the King power to do things he couldn't really afford to do.


What happened as the years went by? The organization founded by Paterson became known as the Bank of England, a private stock corporation whose shareholders consisted of the super-rich of Europe. Paterson, as I said above, disappeared from the scene. He wasn't even one of the initial shareholders!


In time, the Crown became so indebted to the Bank that the interest payments became oppressive. The honeymoon was over. Now taxes had to be raised, so that the people -- as usual -- could be made to bear the burden of this evil system.


As you know, or ought to know, when you go deeply into debt, your creditors own you. Eventually, they come to control your life. The only way out is bankruptcy. Then the trustee of the bankruptcy court owns you. Either way, you are owned!


So England quickly came to be owned. She was owned by Paterson's "Bank of England", which, the name notwithstanding, was a private, for-profit money lending institution. The interest on all the Bank's loans, known as the "National Debt" (sound familiar?), became an onerous and painful financial burden upon the nation.


It cannot be said that the Bank of England was all bad. The good part of it was that it generated "money" to finance the growth of the British Empire, upon which the "sun never set" at one point. But there's always a down-side to fraud. Since the Bank had granted itself the "right" to print money, it became rich beyond imagination. This wealth was used to create a national system of reeking privilege. The Bankers themselves, their key employees, their friends, their relatives, and all others whom they chose to "lay their hands upon", became people of wealth, substance, and "importance". The rest (i.e., the vast majority of our ancestors) languished.


To understand how such a system self-destructs, we ought to turn now to the American clone of the Bank of England, called the "Federal Reserve Bank". Our Bank has, in truth, already "self-destructed", although it has thus far managed to maintain a "clean" public image through fraud on a scale so grand that few can even imagine it.




The Federal Reserve Bank




Like the Bank of England before it, the Federal Reserve Bank is a "central bank", which means a private, for-profit institution which prints "money". It also controls the interest rate. These two powers, namely the power to control the size of the money supply (by "printing" or "not printing"), and the power to control the interest rate, make them the undisputed masters of America. And I didn't say "undisputed masters of American finance", I said "of America", period.


Another Rothschild quote: "Give me control of the currency of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws". Do you really think you live in "the land of the free, the home of the brave"? Read on.


Critics of the Bank point out that it is "not federal" (the going joke is "the Federal Reserve Bank is no more 'federal' than Federal Express"), and that "it has no reserves"! (Remember that our gold and silver reserves are totally unaccounted for). It is, on the other hand, completely amoral and completely unconstitutional--regardless of what any lying politician says to the contrary. The claimed "justification" for its creation was, initially, the "need" to finance America's imperial expansion (as the Bank of England had done for that nation), and later, the "need" to finance America's flirtation with Communism and Socialism (in the form of Social Security and numerous other failed unconstitutional programs).


The brief history of "the Fed", as it refers to itself, is as follows. In 1791, only a few short years after the American Revolution, the Congress of the United States of America, in an act which defies all logic, granted a 20-year charter to the so-called "First United States Bank", which was an obvious clone of the Bank of England! The Bank was passionately championed by Alexander Hamilton (who was apparently sorry later). It was vehemently opposed by Thomas Jefferson.


Amazingly, Hamilton's view prevailed. It seems that the rationale was that banking was a "specialty" which "ought to be left to the bankers". I rather suspect that the passing of many unmarked brown paper bags full of money also contributed to this "rationale". How many brown paper bags, we shall never know.


Because of the obvious unconstitutionality of the Bank, and because of the appearance and relentless growth of what critics called a "hydra of corruption", the charter was not renewed in 1811.


Perhaps because of the financial pressures brought on by the War of 1812, the Bank reared its ugly head again. In 1816, Henry Clay and the Whigs somehow pushed a bill through Congress establishing a Second United States Bank, a carbon-copy of the First. It was unsuccessfully opposed by Democratic Congressman Andrew Jackson.


Huge popular support for Jackson caused him to be elected President in 1829. Although the Supreme Court -- in an early showing of its willingness to issue judgments bordering on treason -- found the Bank's charter to be "constitutional" several years earlier, Jackson violently disagreed. In 1832, Congress voted to renew the Bank's charter, and Jackson vetoed the bill. He then won re-election by a large popular majority in the 1832 presidential campaign, and, seizing the moment, he used his presidential powers to scuttle the Bank completely.


It is important to note that the Supreme Court and both Houses of Congress were behind the Bank, but the people were behind the President. This virtual war, known to the historians as the "Bank War", illustrates frighteningly how fragile our constitutional freedoms are. It certainly seems that the Congress and the Supreme Court have been "for sale" for a very long time.


Please do not forget that in 1832, America was a fledgling nation, struggling for survival in a world of European superpowers. But 81 years later, in 1913, the year of the founding of the "Federal Reserve Bank", America had arguably become the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation.


So between 1832 and 1913, we grew into a superpower, WITHOUT the so-called "benefit" of a "hydra of corruption" running our banking and currency system. But I can guarantee you that every spokesperson for the Fed today will absolutely assure you that there can be no prosperity -- yea, no survival at all -- for any nation which does not have a "central bank" printing money for the benefit and enrichment of its private stockholders. Do you believe that? Or do you believe you've been "had"?




Where do we stand today?




Everyone who has studied the Fed has come to the same conclusion about how it operates, and what it has done to America. The "system" it encompasses has two components:






A "bank of issue" which prints un-backed money from plain paper, and loans it to the nation at interest, and



An "income tax" to pay the interest on the loan. The principal, or so-called "National Debt", is never paid back (but remains hanging over our heads, like a sword ). The interest, however, must be paid. You must pay it.





The only "source" of money in this thinly-veiled British-style bank scam is the promise of the American people to pay. In other words, when Congress votes a budget, it generates, in effect, a national "promissory note". Since a promissory note has "value", the Federal Reserve Bank can print (or, to get technical, order the printing of) new money -- from plain paper! When the Fed "loans" America money, they do no work. But when America gets the "bill" -- in the form of a painful income tax assessment -- then we all have to go to work, and suffer pain to "make money" to pay back the "loan" -- a "loan" which was never made, having been nothing but plain paper from a printing press.


The worst part of the system is that the interest on the "National Debt" is paid directly into the pockets of the Federal Reserve Bankers, who were already, before the system even began, the wealthiest families on earth!


In the first half of the current decade, America passed the "turning point" where the total GNP of America became insufficient to pay the interest on the "National Debt". This means, in effect, that an honest accounting would reveal that NOT ONE PENNY OF INCOME TAX GOES -- ANYMORE -- TO ANY PROGRAM WHICH BENEFITS AMERICA OR ANYONE IN IT!!


How do you deal with a disaster of such magnitude? Easy. You lie. You lie like Hell.


So, since about 1995, the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") of the United States of America has announced that the country is AWASH in money!!


Did America "go for it"? You bet we did! Except for a few right-wing Christian Republicans, no one cared. In effect, America is keeping "two sets of books" on a cosmic scale.


This past year, our compulsive liar President, Bill Clinton, had the audacity to announce that there was a budget "surplus"!! It was like listening to the ranting of a drunk, screaming with glee about nothing at all at a wild party! How can a country with a 10 TRILLION dollar "National Debt" have a surplus? WE'RE TOTALLY AND HOPELESSLY BANKRUPT!


How did the country get duped into this system? Well, the truth of the matter is that few knew, and even less cared. The bankers, who had worked furiously since the American Revolution to get this "holy" (but to what "god"?) project completed -- a project which spanned the generations of the banking families -- these bankers had, by 1913, a strangle-hold on the political parties, the press, and all the other power centers in this country, and what "the people" thought really didn't matter any more.


Both the bank itself, and the "income tax" which finances it, were passed in the same year, 1913. Woodrow Wilson became president on a pro-bank ticket, but it wouldn't have mattered whether he won or lost. All three candidates for the presidency at that time were pro-bank, which, if you ask me, is highly suspicious in itself.


The bills for the Bank and the income tax were voted upon just before Christmas recess, at a time when many Congressmen had already gone home for the holidays. Lobbyists for the bank literally ate, drank and slept in the halls of Congress for the week before the vote. One can well imagine the brown paper bags of money which changed hands that week.


The income tax needed more than a bill. Since income tax in its current form is explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, an Amendment was required. The so-called "16th Amendment", supposedly ratified in 1916, was intended to be that Amendment. In addition to the fact that the 16th Amendment was not legally passed, it does not, in any event, "authorize" an income tax of the sort we now have. The issue is a bit complex, and we cannot go into it at this time. If you are interested in reading about "income tax" and why it is unlawful in this country, and why it will destroy America if it is not terminated. The story of the Fed has been recorded by anti-bank historians like and others. If you read such works, you will want to get out a rusty pitchfork and disembowel every Fed banker you can find. Don't do it! That is not the answer.


Remember, at the top of this Web Site I warned you that the enemy is YOU. The Fed is nothing more than the visible apex of a "pyramid of greed", whose base is the whole of the American people. When that base of greed vanishes, so will the Bank. Until that time, you are trapped in an economic prison of your own design (or at least your own acquiescence), with no way out.


No sooner did the Federal Reserve/Income Tax bill get passed, then the Fed bankers immediately began lowering the "reserve rate". The "reserve rate" is the number of dollars of gold/silver which must be on reserve to cover the printing of a paper dollar bill. All logic and decency demand that the reserve rate should be ONE. That is, if you print a $1 bill, there ought to be $1 of gold or silver somewhere in the bowels of the government.


However, that was not the plan at all. In retrospect, we can see that the plan was to expropriate all America's gold and silver, and replace it with intrinsically worthless pieces of paper.




The Fed, in stages, seizes all our gold and silver





The first step in the fleecing of America was the gradual lowering of the reserve rate. What gave the Fed the right to do that? Why it's that old Satanic "Golden Rule":

"He who has the gold makes the rules".


They had the money -- they made the rules.


Virtually no one in Congress dared oppose them. The few who did, like Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression, tended to die under mysterious circumstances. Strange.


So the Fed continuously and progressively lowered the reserve rate. With a reserve rate of, for example, 50%, the Fed was "allowed" (but by whom?) to print a $1 bill with only fifty cents worth of gold on hand. The one-word description of this is "fraud", but few complained. Except during the Depression, America was "prosperous".


By about 1970, the "reserve rate" had dropped to zero. The Fed now prints a $1 bill with NO reserves of gold or silver. What has this done to the value of our currency?


A lot! In 1912, the year before the Fed was inaugurated, gold sold at $35 an ounce. Now its value vacillates between $300 and $800 an ounce. Do the arithmetic and you'll see: what you could buy for a nickel in 1912 now costs a dollar!


With nothing more than a hand-held calculator, you can readily show that the inflation rate in America, since 1913, has been an average of 5% per year. In some years it has been more, and in others less. But the 5% average has been maintained, year-after-year, since the Fed was inaugurated.


Most people these days think that inflation is some kind of a "law of nature". That's because they've never seen anything else. But know and consider this: prior to 1913, the inflation rate was nil. In 1775, the year this nation was founded, gold was $20 an ounce. In 1913, 138 years later, an ounce of gold had risen only to $35!


Yes, there was inflation, but it was, on a year-to-year basis, imperceptible. Get out your hand-held calculator again: That $15 increase, over 138 years, corresponds to an inflation rate of 0.5% per year. Compare that with the inflation rate of nearly 20% during the Carter administration!


The worse thing about the automatic 5% annual inflation, which we've endured since the inauguration of the Federal Reserve Bank, is that it is built-in to the "system". It cannot be stopped anymore!


Why is there inflation, and why is it so bad? First, let's consider why it exists at all. The economists are in complete agreement that the dumping of un-backed paper into the economy causes inflation in exact proportion to the amount dumped. In other words, if you have, say, $100 million circulating, and you print $10 million more, you're damned-well going to have 10% inflation, and no act of Congress will prevent it.


It can therefore be presumed that the Fed prints, on the average, an additional 5% new money every year, and that we are therefore all doomed to 5% inflation forever (or until the system crashes; whichever comes first).




What actually happens when money is "created"?





Here's how the system works. Every year, Congress votes a budget. It makes no difference what it is, because there is no money to pay for any part of it.


Read this again if you didn't get it the first time: THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR ANY PART OF IT!


Any politician who tells you he's going to "balance the budget" is either an out-and-out liar, or a very ignorant person. In a country with no money at all, the budget is not getting balanced. Ever!


So where does our money come from? We print it! Only "the government" has the "authority" to print money, but in reality only the Fed has the power to order the printing. Anyone who challenges this power should expect to find himself in very, very serious trouble. The last President who stood up to them was John Kennedy.


So, every year, the Fed, in effect, "orders" money to be printed, or created electronically. Once created, the Fed becomes the owner -- by purchasing it. But they don't pay for the face value of the money; they only pay for the production costs! Thus, if the U.S. government printing office prints a $1 bill, the Fed "buys" it for about two cents. These two pennies cover the cost of the paper and ink used to print the bill.


For a $100 bill, the cost is the same: two cents! It makes no difference what the denomination of the bill is; the Fed only pays for the cost of printing it. Then it's theirs. All theirs.


Next, the Fed sends the money "back to America", but only in the form of a "loan". Nothing is given away! One way the money is, in effect, "loaned" to America is through the purchase, by the Fed, of U.S. Treasury notes, which we, the people, must pay back with interest. WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?


Isn't this the same thing we read about in our study of the Bank of England?


Yes, it is. The Fed, like the Bank of England before it, prints (or causes to be printed) money, and lends it to the "crown" (i.e., your self-declared "King", the federal government) at interest. The principal is never paid back, but no one cares. Least of all the Fed. After all, they printed it from plain paper. It's "no skin off their backs".


Ah, but the interest! That's another matter entirely. The interest must be paid back. The source of the "pay-back" money is "income tax". In other words, your labor pays the interest on this "loan".


The government tells us we must work almost half the year to pay "our taxes", i.e., our individual "share" of the interest on a Federal Reserve "loan" which was cut from plain paper. Is this legal? Their "money" is not real, and they certainly didn't work for it. But your labor is very real, and, if you don't pay the tax, they'll use every trick in the book to throw you into jail (even though there's no law requiring the average American to file a tax return -- believe it or not!).


The income tax has had one, and only one true purpose since its inception in 1913: to pay the interest on the national debt.


Let us pause for a brief summary. Here again, in a nutshell, is how the "system" works:

The Fed prints money
They pretend to lend it to us
We pretend to borrow it.

This loan constitutes the "lion's share" of what is known as "the National Debt". The principal of this debt is never paid back, but the interest must be paid. Although the dollars they lend us are, in effect, fictional, the labor we must do to pay them back is very, very real.




Am I merely "jealous" of the Fed's prosperity?

Or is this system really malignant?





With all this anti-bank rhetoric, you may think that I have forgotten the 10 Commandments. Am I merely "coveting" the Fed's prosperity?


No. The main problem is not that the Federal Reserve Bankers will end up owning everything (although that surely is a problem). The main problem is that you are going to end up with nothing!


Those who say "America is a land of prosperity, so why complain?", are dangerously short-sighted.


Remember, we now have 5% inflation per year, forever (i.e., until the system collapses, which will be soon). As an exercise, let's think about a workingman who belongs to a labor union. This is not a good time for laborers. Who do you know who gets a 5% raise every year? No one! Today, a workingman is lucky if he gets 5% in five years!


And yet, if the workingman fails to get that 5% raise, than he -- and each and every one of the rest of us -- will get 5% poorer. Since this poverty is compounded every year -- like some sort of nightmare bank from Hell with "negative" interest -- it takes only about 14 years for our purchasing power to be cut in half.


Although I will not enhance my "popularity" with the opposite sex for saying it, I must tell you that this is the real reason why women all work now. Sure, for some there may be issues of "women's liberation", but I assure you that more and more women are realizing that raising a family is not a "waste of a life" after all, but is life.


What if some, or all of the so-called "liberated" women of America decided to go back home and raise families now? Would they be able to? Not a chance! Some "liberty" that turned out to be!


Twenty years ago, a man, by himself, was able to go to work and support a family. These days, however, a man and a woman both working full time cannot support a family, and assistance is required. And where does the assistance come from? You guessed it: "Big Brother". Big Brother, to whom you will soon owe your very existence. God forbid.


Let's get back to our union worker. Suppose the union decides "enough is enough", and the workers go out on strike? What will happen?


Well, for starters, the strike will go on for weeks or months, with no pay for the workers during that time. Their families will suffer badly. Many families will disintegrate, with wives (or these days, husbands) taking the children and fleeing to parents or other relatives for survival.


When the strike finally ends, what sort of a raise is the worker likely to get? Five percent? NEVER. These days, if the worker gets even 2% he is lucky indeed. But this meager raise will not even offset the income he lost during the strike. And, worse still, by the end of the year, his cost-of-living will have gone up by 5%, as it has done each and every year since 1913. His pathetic 2% raise will not even cover the increase in his cost-of-living. He is doomed!


You are doomed. Unless you act.


A few politicians have tried vainly to fight back. It is believed by many that John Kennedy was murdered for attempting to block the expropriation of American silver reserves by the bankers. True or false? We'll probably never know.


Ronald Reagan, correctly assessing the gravity of America's financial situation, convened the Grace Commission, which gleaned the cumulative wisdom of thousands of America's top business leaders. Their report, released in the mid-1980's, revealed some shocking statistics. Chief among them was the statistic about income tax.


Grace Commission projections showed unequivocally that by 1995, the interest on the National Debt would exceed all the incoming tax revenues combined!!! Do not pass this statistic by if you do not grasp the full implications of it.


If every dollar of income tax collected goes to payment of interest on old debt, then what money does America have to pay her current expenses? Absolutely none! There is testimony in the Congressional Record about this, but this sort of news never reaches the daily papers. How come?


I mentioned the "OMB" (Office of Management and Budget) earlier. Their public Web Site now shows that America is AWASH IN MONEY!!!


All of a sudden -- we are being told -- the tax money coming in is much more than sufficient to pay interest on old debts, and to fund all manner of outrageous new federal expenses. Who's fooling who?


These OMB statistics are worse than lies. A lie misrepresents or distorts the truth. Implicit in most lies is an unstated acknowledgment that a certain truth exists. You just won't get the whole story from the liar.


But the OMB statistics are not "misrepresentations" or "distortions". They are pure fiction. You learn about as much about the federal economy reading OMB statistics as you would watching a rerun of The Wizard of Oz. This means: you learn nothing whatsoever.


It is often said that when the currency of a nation becomes debauched, the general morality of the nation follows. The death of the nation follows shortly after that.


The death of your nation, insofar as it is a nation of "freedom", is at hand.




When you borrow money, you are borrowing nothing!




If none of what you've read so far has upset you, then I'll try one last time to wake you up.


Did you know that in America of the late 20th century, when you borrow money, nobody gives you anything?


Let me repeat this, in case it went by you. When you borrow money, nobody gives you anything.


You go down to your local bank, you apply for a loan, your application is accepted, you sign a promissory note, they give you a check. Didn't they just give you "their" money?


No, it wasn't "their" money.


Well, then, wasn't it depositor's money?


No, it wasn't depositor's money.


Well, then whose money was it?


The incredible answer is: "Nobody's!".


In America today, when you apply for any sort of credit, your promissory note is deposited as if it was money, and a check is written against it. If you did what the money-lenders do, you would be arrested with blinding speed, and put into jail for "counterfeiting".


So what gives a banker, or a mortgage provider, the "right" to create money and lend it to you? The only real answer is "might", as in "right makes might". Another answer is the Devil's "Golden Rule", namely "He who has the gold, makes the rules!.




What is the economic plan for the "future" of America?




This is an easy question to answer. The central banking systems of America and the other nations of the world are all on the same "wavelength". They are all owned and operated privately, by the very, very richest of the super-rich, for their own benefit, and for their benefit only.


Their plan is barely concealed. It is to create a "one-world" Bank Dictatorship, within which you will be reduced to serfdom. Unless, of course, you are one of their "friends".


What sort of people are these bankers? Are they really all that bad? Don't they also give money to the poor?


Yes, it is expedient for the super-rich to spread a little money around in the cloak of "charity". Why not? They print it from plain paper! It's "no skin off their backs".


Bearing in mind that it is entirely possible (yea, even certain) that among the world bankers, there are some God-fearing men and women, it must nevertheless be presumed that one doesn't become a trillionaire unless one loves money more than people.


We started out, at the top of this Web Site, by reminding you of Jesus' saying: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). Are you at least beginning to see the real meaning of this? The world bankers are the living embodiment of service to mammon. They have been for many generations. It is their "religion". And, because you love their money more than you love God, it has long since become your religion too.


Don't waste time denying it. This is a time for action, not denial. The doors of your new prison are about to be shut upon you. In or around the year 2,000, the economies of all nations will "mysteriously" collapse. There will be many excuses, such as the Y2K computer problem, global "terrorism", religious "fanaticism", etc. But the real reason for the coming collapse is that it was planned that way.


The Christian patriots have been screaming this for years, but you didn't listen.


Since the currency has nothing behind it, its value is entirely up to the bankers. If they wish to, a few well-placed press releases will trigger a panic which will deprive all paper money of its purchasing power. Then, like knights in shining armor mounted on pure white stallions, they will ride into your lives with an "answer": an all-electronic cashless economy, where the value of everything, and of everybody, is strictly regulated by computers on a world-wide basis. "Whew! We're saved!"


But are we really saved?


In order to be "registered" with this world banking system, you will have to "take a number". Christians have known that this was coming for 2,000 years. This is the world-famous "Mark of the Beast". Currently, the closest thing to this mark is the Social Security number, without which it's already almost impossible to buy or sell anything.


The Social Security number, or whatever new number the "Beast" assigns you, will be your ticket to everything in life. Do you doubt it? There's a massive literature on this subject, and I will not even attempt to do more than scratch the surface. Consider the following. Without the "mark", you will not be able to:

Open a bank account.
Get a job.
Apply for a license to open a business.
Obtain "health insurance".
Have a baby in a hospital.
Ride a subway (the "smart" subway card has already been designed and tested).
Purchase or lease a car.
Go through a toll booth (most toll booths are already "Easy Pass").

It gets much worse. There are systems already fully designed and operational which employ the "smart" card to access your car, and even your own home. "Keyless entry", they call it. Great technological innovation, no? Wouldn't that be the end of all burglery? It might. But wait a minute. What if they deny access to you? Could you be locked out of your own home by invisible government agents?


In the United States of America, it is supposed to be the case that you are "innocent until proven guilty" (in reality this, and all other constitutional rights, have already all

buff
2nd December 2006, 09:14
The truth requires few words. Money is whatever serves as a medium of exchange. Sovereign is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as one having a supreme rank or power. Would that describe a president?

Ardent Listener
2nd December 2006, 14:36
The truth requires few words. Money is whatever serves as a medium of exchange. Sovereign is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as one having a supreme rank or power. Would that describe a president?

A medium of exchange that both parties are freely willing to accept may be money. A medium of exchange that one is forced to accept is tyranny.

buff
2nd December 2006, 14:54
One hundred and fifty years ago this nation had 5,000 issuers of paper money. Perhaps you would like to see that time come again. That is an average of about a hundred fifty currencies per state with some having more than average I am sure. If, for example, a bank or even the railroad had some paper and ink they had money. Now my question is this. If you want the world to return to gold and silver as the preferred medium of exchange...where are you going to get the metal? Where are you going to get the metal? What are you going to do when the value of the metal deviates from the face value of your metal money? Finally, was there any inflation before paper money in America?

Ardent Listener
2nd December 2006, 20:35
As W. Clement Stone once said: "Events tend to recur in cycles." We see evidence of this in nature, in many types of mathematical numbers, and through the business cycle. A number of economists, analysts, and consumers claim that a return to the gold standard, to their "honest money" as they call it, would insulate them from the problems they see in our conventional paper-based currency. Financial leaders dismiss metal-backed currency. A return to gold standard will not occur on their watch. However this debate doesn't matter anymore because these people are getting what they want. Instead of waiting on governments to legislate them their gold-money - the market is providing it for them.

Since the early 1970's when the US separated gold from its currency, experts and citizens have been yearning for a return of the yellow metal to their money. Banking and government agencies insist paper money is the right way forward. Instead of bending to these leadership elites "honest money" folks are finding that The Internet is the perfect place to find like-minded individuals with whom to do business in gold.

Organizations such as e-Gold, Phoenix Dollar, Liberty Dollar, and GoldMoney have sprung up online to offer an easy way for consumers to buy and transfer precious metals. Consumers have responded by giving them their paper money for a chance to transact in gold. Members can purchase gold, silver and other metals at competitive market prices and the organization stores their metal for them offsite. Using an online web interface members can send and receive payments of gold/silver as well as request delivery of their precious metal. The growing gold reserves of these online currencies speak volumes for demand.

e-Gold, for example, claims to have attained a circulation larger than Canada's official gold reserves, web traffic exceeding etrade.com, and processes about $10million of user-to-user payments everyday1. These are certainly impressive numbers - evidence these "honest money" folks really are committed to their ideal. A growing number of merchants who use these new currencies now transact almost exclusively with them. However, the shift to buying and making payments in gold is also gaining ground offline.

The Liberty Dollar is an initiative to put the value of a commodity such as gold & silver back into the pockets of American consumers2. On their website the Liberty Dollar makes a compelling case for moving to a commodity-based currency as it contrasts the growing US Debt with the declining purchasing power of the US Federal Reserve Note. The Liberty Dollar is similar to its counterparts as it allows online payments to be made. However its currency is unique because Liberty Dollar members make day-to-day purchases with gold & silver certificates and medallions. Liberty Dollar merchants claim that the powerful incentive to accept this currency is the unmistakable attractiveness to holding real wealth versus ink and paper. This renaissance of holding gold is not isolated to Americans but also to the directors of central banks.

Russia and China are increasing their country's gold reserves. In 2005 Russia announced it was going to double its gold reserves3. Asian central banks, which hold 2.6 trillion US dollars4, are also being hailed as the next big buyers of gold. China, for instance, attracted international attention as it doubled its gold reserves to 600 tonnes between 2000 and 20025. If this were not enough Chinese economists are now calling for the government to quadruple its gold reserves to 2,500 tonnes6. Why are these countries increasing gold reserves? Why not simply continue to buy the world's great US Dollar?

China has been selling US Dollars noting that "The general trend for the U.S. dollar is continuously weakening".7 As China moves their wealth from dollars to gold it can protect itself from the faltering dollar and take advantage of a rising price of gold. In 2003 the oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, put Berkshire Hathaway's assets in a defensive position by purchasing foreign currencies for the first time in its history. He cited the transference of US net worth overseas for the basis of his actions8. The US Dollar's fall from grace means commodities, such as food, are susceptible to price increases. Making matters worse is our changing climate.

Weather changes impact our ability to grow food. As food prices depend on global availability a drop in production has an immediate impact on cost. In early October 2006 US Wheat prices hit a 10 year high because "wheat harvests from Australia to Argentina, Europe and North America have been affected by drought, heatwaves and, in the case of Ukraine, infestation from the Eurygaster beetle."9 In light of this paying for a commodity with a commodity, like gold, will surely make more and more sense.

Many consumers around the world hope their governments respond effectively to the changing climate and the problems facing the world's reserve currency, the US Dollar. Unfortunately ordinary citizens assume they have little political power except every four years. Only through a government mandate, they will claim, can things be made possible. Because a growing number of people across the world recognize that their economic vote can be much more powerful than their electoral vote - gold emerges once again as a currency for all.

buff
2nd December 2006, 22:34
About forty years ago when the government separated gold from paper there was five cents of gold for every dollar. And, that was only for international dollars. I guess that was confidence builder for somebody. Now, here is my same my question. Where do you expect to get the gold and silver for your metal money or even a metal reserve? How much reserve do you want? How do you expect the US government to have enough metal to redeem international dollars which will represent a net drain of gold reserves? And more importantly, what do you expect to do when the value of gold and silver deviates from the face value of your metal money? If you advocate a gold reserve, what do you do when the price of gold declines and the government suddenly has to come up with a billion pounds more of gold to meet the reserve? A few words only please.

The truth requires few words......Ghandi

oroborean
4th December 2006, 00:53
thanks, AL, for doing the research. i would have to agree that the congress legally, although shamefully, transferred its power to coin money to the federal reserve. i don't, however, see when it ever became legal to print money that wasn't backed by metal. the responsibility to solve the problem of finding the metal reserves now is not on the people of this site or anyone demanding the problem be fixed. ask instead the institutions who put us in this situation. ask hank paulson.

buff
4th December 2006, 09:30
Last time I looked the treasury department is still coining money. If you have yet to find where American dollars are printed without a metal reserve......keep looking. Anyway, why all of this fuss about a metal reserve for bills and coins. They represent less than ten percent of the money supply. Eventually, modern technology will make them extinct.

oroborean
4th December 2006, 15:58
i advocate buying silver because of the reality of our financial system, because silver is a great investment right now. i don't necessarily advocate a metal-backed currency system, though i do believe it has some merit. my understanding is that whether digits on a computer, or physical coins and paper, every form of a metal-backed currency would be represent physical metal. or, it's possible that there would be some permissible level of fractional reserve lending. but just because a dollar is recorded and even transferred digitally doesn't mean it shouldn't have some inherent value.

buff
4th December 2006, 22:11
I understand that all of this is coming from a person who thinks paper money is printed by the federal reserve and is backed by gold. I want you to do like I did. I want you to go to a major university and get a degree in economics. In getting that degree, I want you to take a real course in money and banking like I have. Then take another course in monetary policy.
After that, you will realize what a hair brained understanding of money and monetary policy you have. Now, tell me one more time where the metal is going to come from. Because the amounts you are talking about will never exist.

oroborean
5th December 2006, 10:34
it doesn't take a degree in economics to know that the nominal price of gold or silver is relative to a currency. the world has hundreds of millions of ounces of gold and silver and a new currency could be created based on whatever supply is available and prices of metal and other goods would then be set accordingly. there is no supply problem, other than perhaps in silver, where annual production does not keep pace with use, most of which permanently removes the metal from the market, and which, if you own silver, is really no problem at all . :wink:

buff
5th December 2006, 14:19
Apparently it does take a degree to understand money, banking and monetary policy. Because none of you here know anything about it.

buff
6th December 2006, 23:56
You people are so fond of cutting and pasting here I thought I would cut something from Wikipedia for you.

In modern mainstream economic thought, a gold standard is considered undesirable because it is associated with the collapse of the world economy in the late 1920's, and that aggregate supply and demand is a far better means of regulating interest rates, money supply and monetary basis.

Well...so much for a return to "honest, constitutional money."

MiloMorai
23rd April 2010, 18:48
Last time I looked the treasury department is still coining money. If you have yet to find where American dollars are printed without a metal reserve......keep looking. Anyway, why all of this fuss about a metal reserve for bills and coins. They represent less than ten percent of the money supply. Eventually, modern technology will make them extinct.

Ah Yes Buffster all those who worship mammon will be extinct.

DaBrownsRPhat
26th April 2010, 13:28
Apparently it does take a degree to understand money, banking and monetary policy. Because none of you here know anything about it.

I just typed out a long, informative respose, but I was timed out when I hit submit and I lost it.

So consider yourself lucky that I am too pissed right now to redo it. Also consider that with your education, you still lack understanding.

I can tell you all about the blue box we all are in, the ins and outs, the way it was formed and the way to preserve it. You can be the most educated about what's in the blue box, but you are still clueless about the world outside of that blue box. Don't get over confident because you may know a lot about our current system, but from your response you know nothing of money. There is a whole level of thinking and understanding that is NOT TAUGHT. I know, because I had to learn after unlearning what was told to me. (Not forgetting it, but knowing where and how that appies, and it isn't universal).

JCM6395
26th April 2010, 15:59
I read the Constitution a couple years ago and I thought WTF!!!! How in the hell did they get rid of gold/silver backing without the SHTF!!! They went through the Revolution with fiat money and knew what that was like. There was a reason they included the gold/silver into the Constitution.

Hamilton catches a lot of crap for creating the Bank of the US in 1791 but it wasn't because he had an evil plan to enslave us all. He was against a perpetual national debt. He just wanted us to get strong enough to defend our nation if a crisis occurred. To do this he used the colonial war debt to establish our international credit rating. Which we needed to industrialize and grow in strength to challenge England.

Colonel Clink
29th April 2010, 19:17
Last time I looked the treasury department is still coining money. If you have yet to find where American dollars are printed without a metal reserve......keep looking. Anyway, why all of this fuss about a metal reserve for bills and coins. They represent less than ten percent of the money supply. Eventually, modern technology will make them extinct.

There is a reasonable expectation that after the SHTF, a new system of 'global currency' will emerge, and it will be 100% electronic. The origin of money, as Adam Smith observed, started out as labor; the value of mine for the value of yours. The evolution to metals was for pragmatic reasons, as was the use of paper in it's place, once backed by metals and now not.

I like metals 'cause they're purdy! Shiny too! Doesn't mean they can't be obsolete someday, once the NWO takes over...

Sakata
29th April 2010, 19:31
What are you going to do when the value of the metal deviates from the face value of your metal money?

How can it? If metal is money then the face value will be its weight. There will be nothing else to measure it by. No dollars, no euro, nothing except the gold or silver itself and each piece of gold or silver will be clearly labelled with its weight.

Colonel Clink
1st May 2010, 11:16
Apparently it does take a degree to understand money, banking and monetary policy. Because none of you here know anything about it.

Ok Mr. Snarkypants, consider this. Adam Smith discussed the divergence of metal value from face value in 1776, and concluded that the commodity price is the ONLY true value to be considered.

herriscalvin
11th May 2010, 01:13
Great Though and i have read the post and article you have shared here .. much effective and useful.