THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)
The greenback currency was only issued twice, a total of $449,338,902 debt and gold free paper money was created. The price inflation during the war which reached over 100% was blamed on it. While this was largely true, those who were issuing fractional reserve (so-called gold backed) banker money had most of the power over the money supply even then. Especially after the National banking act ended the issuing of greenbacks.
"While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to control the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system, we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."- Horace Greely, American journalist and politician (1811-1872)
The bankers wrote:
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that the capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. IT WILL NOT DO TO ALLOW THE GREENBACK, as it is called, TO CIRCULATE AS MONEY any length of time, as WE CAN NOT CONTROL THAT. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues." - Hazard Circular of 1862
By the end of the Civil war, a Greenback dollar was worth less than 50 cents to the banker "gold" dollar. But as it became obvious that Congress would redeem them in gold, and accepted them as payment of taxes, they became worth more and more. By 1868 it only took $138 in Greenbacks to buy $100 in gold, and by 1874, $111. In 1875, Congress passed a law saying that on January 1, 1879, Greenbacks would be redeemable in gold on a one-to-one basis. This happened with no fanfare whatsoever. Yet still the debtless Greenbacks were removed from circulation.
To give the American public the impression that they would be better off under the exclusive gold standard, the money changers used the control they had been given to create money under the National Bank Act to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression and reducing the money supply. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation. Most of this money was debt created money through fractional reserve banking, but the people were led to believe that it was Greenbacks that caused the problems.
The money supply was reduced from $1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 ($50.46 per person), to $1.3 billion in 1867 ($44.00 per person), to $0.6 billion in 1876 ($14.60 per person) and down to $0.4 billion only ten years later. That is merely $6.67 per person. Thus was the depression of the 1870's.
By 1872 the American public was feeling the squeeze, but it wasn’t fast enough. So the Bank of England sent Ernest Seyd, with piles of money, to bribe congressmen into passing an unconstitutional law demonetizing silver. (The word "dollar" was originally defined as 371.25 grains of silver.) Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which became law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver as money.
Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself:
"I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." - Ernest Seyd
Or as explained by Senator Daniel of Virginia "In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland; a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)".
At that time the National Banks were issuing paper notes, and the government was coining metals into money, the only government paper money was the greenbacks.
By 1876, with 30% of the work force unemployed, the American people began to long for the days of silver money and the greenbacks. The US Silver Commission was set up to study the deflating currency problem and reported this telling history:
"The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilization could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."
While the United States Silver Commission obviously could see the problems being caused by the restricted money supply, this declaration did little to help the problem, and in 1877 riots broke out all over the country. The bankers response was to do nothing except to campaign against the idea that greenbacks should be reissued or silver remonitized. The American Bankers Association secretary James Buel expressed the banker’s attitude well in a letter to fellow members of the association.
He wrote:
"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the agricultural and religious press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money; and that you also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country, for then we can better protect each other. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with profits as bankers and lenders. See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests, that we may control legislation." -James Buel American Bankers Association (from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States)
James Garfield became the Republican President in 1881 with a firm grasp of where the problem lay:
"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." - James Garfield 1881 (Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield died of poisoning.)
For ten years after a great populist movement grew within the country and the Democratic Party became the silver party, or the anti gold-only party.
The cry from the streets was to...
FREE SILVER (1891 - 1912)
The dollar was originally defined in silver and although there was a not so smart exact rate of 15:1 value of silver to gold from 1792 to 1873, demonitizing silver was a very bad idea, besides being unconstitutional.
Fleecing of the flock is the term the money changers use for the process of booms and depressions which make it possible for them to repossess property at a fraction of its worth. In 1891 a major fleece was being planned:
"On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."- 1891 American Bankers Association (as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913)
The continued gold only standard made this possible. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate for President in 1896; campaigning to bring silver back as money (free silver). He said in his famous speech:
"We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."- William Jennings Bryan
Of course the money changers supported his opposition on the Republican side as long as he wanted the exclusive gold standard maintained. They all suggested that monetizing silver was simply “inflation” (which obviously was not what the bankers feared, but rather the lack of BANKER CREATED inflation was). The factory bosses were convinced to tell their work force that business would close down if Bryan was elected, and everyone would lose their jobs. Bryan lost a very close election but tried again in 1900 and in 1908 but lost both times. He became Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson in 1912 but resigned in 1915 under suspicious circumstances connected with the sinking of the Lusitania which drove America into the First World War.
J.P.MORGAN AND THE CRASH OF 1907
If you want to understand the causes of the crash of 1907 (which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve), seeing who benefited is where you should look first. When the stock market slumped causing many of the over extended fractional reserve banks to falter, J.P. Morgan stepped in and offered to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan in effect became the central bank of the United States and was authorized to print $200 million out of thin air merely by loaning it out, which he used to "prop" things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice but to borrow from him. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they realized that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P. Morgan was hailed a hero even by the next presidential candidate:
"All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country." -Woodrow Wilson
But not everyone was fooled:
"The market prices of commodities vary from day to day. This occurs when there is no radical difference in the proportion to the supply and the natural demand. This FACT is conclusive proof that our system is controlled by manipulators and fundamentally wrong. Act No. 1 was the manufacture, between 1896 and 1907, through stock gambling, speculation and other devious methods and devices, of tens of billions of watered stocks, bonds, and securities. Act No. 2 was the panic of 1907, by which those not favorable to the Money Trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame. ... see how these bankers have impoverished us by selling to us, - at usury prices, - the credit that is supported by our own toil,... The king bankers put in motion, in 1907, a great scheme. They had gambled and speculated on Wall Street, until so many watered stocks and bonds had been manufactured on speculation, that numberless speculators, big and small, sprang up all over the country, and stocks, bonds, and credits were pyramided, and re-pyramided, and re-re-pyramided. Of course such a condition could not last and a crash was inevitable, because it was not natural for such gambling to continue." -Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr.
Notice how these artful and cunning men created the panic of 1907 so that they could provide the solution. Is this not the old Hegelian principle at work?
Apart from making a small number rich at the expense of the many, in this case the instability also served the second purpose of encouraging the public to believe that they would be better off living under a Central Bank and a fractional-reserve "Gold" Standard, The Federal Reserve System.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The History of Money Part Four: Andy and Abe
PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)
"The bold efforts that the present bank has made to CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT and the distress it has wantonly caused, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it...If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning." -Andrew Jackson's address to Congress, 1829
When Congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States 2 years early, Jackson responded with the greatest veto in history to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight.
“I am one of those who do not believe a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic. It is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country... It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."-Andrew Jackson 1 1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)
In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government money from the Second bank and had it put into state banks. He fired his Treasury Secretary and his first replacement for refusing to do so. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle displayed the power and intention of the bankers when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote.
"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank." -Nicholas Biddle 1836
By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans the bank did cause a massive depression. It was then Andrew Jackson made these two famous statements: "You are a den of vipers and thieves and I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out!” and "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" -Andrew Jackson
When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his volumous career, Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" Even desiring to put those words on his headstone when he died.
Andrew Jackson is the only President in history to have paid off the National Debt. He did this soon after killing the bank, and even began a policy of returning tax money back to the states. Although we had no central bank for over 70 years, this was definately not the end of private financial influence over government, when we look at...
ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)
Even with the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking continued like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead, causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their value.
“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.” -Abraham Lincoln
On the 12th of April 1861 the Civil war began. Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers, wishing or assuming the Union to fail, offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this:
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also." -Colonel Dick Taylor
When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."- Colonel Dick Taylor
Lincoln agreed to this solution and Congress printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. These were called “Greenbacks”
"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power." -Abraham Lincoln
The solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realized how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, its effect shows clearly its advantages.
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Hazard Circular - London Times 1865
From this extract it’s plain to see that it is the advantage provided by adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. But in 1863 Lincoln needed more money to win the war, and the President could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed through their agents in Congress, the passing of the National Bank Act, that instituted Treasury bonds to replace the greenbacks, Lincoln needing war funds was forced to sign it. Thus restoring the exclusive power to inflate the money supply to a priveleged group of banks, and requiring the government to issue debt bonds against the new money created by the banks. Near the end of the war Lincoln said:
"Yes; we may all congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its close. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the Nation might live. It has been, indeed a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." –Abraham Lincoln 1865
Since 1863 the entire US money supply would be created out of debt to bankers buying US government bonds and issuing money in the form of national bank notes. Even though some of the greenbacks continued to be in circulation up until 1994, their numbers were never increased but in fact continuously decreased. In spite of this, having the greenbacks in circulation in America created great wealth.
"In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not [however] pay off its debt, or retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."- John Kenneth Galbraith
The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming our banking system is a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the Civil War. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war to continue it's funding. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected.
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution." - W. Cleon Skousen.
Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, requiring the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks. With only the money changers standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action.
"The bold efforts that the present bank has made to CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT and the distress it has wantonly caused, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it...If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning." -Andrew Jackson's address to Congress, 1829
When Congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States 2 years early, Jackson responded with the greatest veto in history to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight.
“I am one of those who do not believe a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic. It is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country... It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."-Andrew Jackson 1 1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)
In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government money from the Second bank and had it put into state banks. He fired his Treasury Secretary and his first replacement for refusing to do so. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle displayed the power and intention of the bankers when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote.
"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank." -Nicholas Biddle 1836
By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans the bank did cause a massive depression. It was then Andrew Jackson made these two famous statements: "You are a den of vipers and thieves and I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out!” and "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" -Andrew Jackson
When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his volumous career, Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" Even desiring to put those words on his headstone when he died.
Andrew Jackson is the only President in history to have paid off the National Debt. He did this soon after killing the bank, and even began a policy of returning tax money back to the states. Although we had no central bank for over 70 years, this was definately not the end of private financial influence over government, when we look at...
ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)
Even with the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking continued like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead, causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their value.
“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.” -Abraham Lincoln
On the 12th of April 1861 the Civil war began. Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers, wishing or assuming the Union to fail, offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this:
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also." -Colonel Dick Taylor
When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."- Colonel Dick Taylor
Lincoln agreed to this solution and Congress printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. These were called “Greenbacks”
"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power." -Abraham Lincoln
The solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realized how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, its effect shows clearly its advantages.
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Hazard Circular - London Times 1865
From this extract it’s plain to see that it is the advantage provided by adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. But in 1863 Lincoln needed more money to win the war, and the President could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed through their agents in Congress, the passing of the National Bank Act, that instituted Treasury bonds to replace the greenbacks, Lincoln needing war funds was forced to sign it. Thus restoring the exclusive power to inflate the money supply to a priveleged group of banks, and requiring the government to issue debt bonds against the new money created by the banks. Near the end of the war Lincoln said:
"Yes; we may all congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its close. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the Nation might live. It has been, indeed a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." –Abraham Lincoln 1865
Since 1863 the entire US money supply would be created out of debt to bankers buying US government bonds and issuing money in the form of national bank notes. Even though some of the greenbacks continued to be in circulation up until 1994, their numbers were never increased but in fact continuously decreased. In spite of this, having the greenbacks in circulation in America created great wealth.
"In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not [however] pay off its debt, or retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."- John Kenneth Galbraith
The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming our banking system is a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the Civil War. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war to continue it's funding. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected.
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution." - W. Cleon Skousen.
Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, requiring the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks. With only the money changers standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The History of Money Part Three: Rothschilds vs America
THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743) A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild". His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes. Once he got the hang of things he set his sights much higher by teaching his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centers of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.
J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the Second World War, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild Empire, personally owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies. "There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild." -19th century French commentator 1 (1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848)
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)
By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt. Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000. In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a program to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive program of taxation. There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied. "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one." -Benjamin Franklin 1 1.
They learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing. That would mean being free of the Bank of England. In Response the world's most powerful central bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764. This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that. "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."- Benjamin Franklin
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War." -Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war. This money was called “The Continental” dollar, but it lost all of its value due to the war. This paper money is all you read about in modern textbooks, because of its failure.What is interesting is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, that it became a threat to the largest and most powerful established economic system of the time. The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" without charging interest was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued paper money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.
THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785)
If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781. Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, (to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking) must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Confederate Congress. Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France. Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned himself, and his friends, the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.
The scam lasted only five years, until in 1785, when the value of American money dropped like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed. The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by another Morris. "The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Governor Morris 11.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2
FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)
It worked once, and works in England, why not try again? It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down. Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the names of the investors were never revealed. Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amschel Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt, Germany.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changers had learned their lesson; they had the new Constitutional government guarantee a twenty year charter. The first Secretary of State, and then Vice-President, who could see an ever increasing debt with little chance of ever paying it back, had this to say:
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."-Thomas Jefferson,
1798 while the independent Anti-Federalist press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra." As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money. The remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter in 1811, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed by congress or the fourth President, James Madison. Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.
J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the Second World War, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild Empire, personally owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies. "There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild." -19th century French commentator 1 (1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848)
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)
By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt. Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000. In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a program to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive program of taxation. There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied. "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one." -Benjamin Franklin 1 1.
They learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing. That would mean being free of the Bank of England. In Response the world's most powerful central bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764. This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that. "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."- Benjamin Franklin
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War." -Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war. This money was called “The Continental” dollar, but it lost all of its value due to the war. This paper money is all you read about in modern textbooks, because of its failure.What is interesting is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, that it became a threat to the largest and most powerful established economic system of the time. The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" without charging interest was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued paper money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.
THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785)
If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781. Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, (to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking) must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Confederate Congress. Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France. Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned himself, and his friends, the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.
The scam lasted only five years, until in 1785, when the value of American money dropped like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed. The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by another Morris. "The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Governor Morris 11.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2
FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)
It worked once, and works in England, why not try again? It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down. Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the names of the investors were never revealed. Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amschel Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt, Germany.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changers had learned their lesson; they had the new Constitutional government guarantee a twenty year charter. The first Secretary of State, and then Vice-President, who could see an ever increasing debt with little chance of ever paying it back, had this to say:
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."-Thomas Jefferson,
1798 while the independent Anti-Federalist press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra." As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money. The remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter in 1811, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed by congress or the fourth President, James Madison. Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.
Friday, January 4, 2008
History of Money Part Two: Bankers vs The Tally Stick
MEDIEVAL EUROPE (1000 - 1100 A.D.) Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there. These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.
After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest. A nod and a wink amongst themselves and the governments that borrowed the money, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice a technical term: 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out most of the money than you have on deposit, and keeping only a fraction in reserve while telling all your depositors they have their money safe with you. Inventing money based on the magic that it can exist in two places at once.
Today banks in America are allowed to loan out more than ten times the amount they actually hold on deposit. The reserve requirement is 10% for “demand” (checking account) deposits, and 0% for savings accounts. For every $10 deposited in a checking account, they lend $9 of it, while leading the depositor to believe they have all of it. The fact of the matter is that $9 likely becomes a new deposit when it is loaned out, and 90% of that is considered loan-able also. So while you wonder how they get rich charging you 10% interest, it's not 10% a year they make on that amount but likely 10% multiplied by 9.999...
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced an ingenious monetary system based on sticks of polished wood with notches cut along one edge to signify the amount. The stick was split in half lengthwise so each half still had a record of the notches. The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the marketplace where it would continue to circulate as money. Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which, along with the counterfeit protection, gave people confidence to accept these fancy sticks as money. He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed and perceived that it had value. His willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree.
Money is only as valuable as the faith people have in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper. Even gold is valuable only because we believe it.The tally stick system worked well for 726 years! It was the most successful form of non metallic currency in known history, and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of it. The gold holding elite realized it was money outside the power of the money changers (the very thing King Henry had intended), and their fortunes were shrinking because they could not manufacture wealth so easily.What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it? That seems to be what happened after the shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with these notched pieces of wood and then began to berate the system.
The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through wealthy investors buying shares, with tally sticks no less! Even the Bank of England’s nationalization is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
The original investors, whose names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694. It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot. This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to create the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it. With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute through interest. The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars; costly to those fighting them but very profitable to those financing them. So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centers in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned central bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain. Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes. This was much easier for politicians than publicly authorizing more tally sticks.
You would think people would have seen through this, and realized they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core. These central banks have the power to dictate a nation’s economy and become that nation’s real governing force.
What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected for private concerns. The country sells bonds and securities to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for with bank money produced from NOTHING. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase. If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency!
With its formation, the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction. One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses. By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
In times of economic upheaval, the deflation required to stop massive inflation, wealth is rarely destroyed but instead is merely transferred. Those who benefit the very most when money becomes scarce again are those who inflated in the first place and control the quantity of what everyone wants, the money changers. When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable. cont......(next the Rothschilds)
After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest. A nod and a wink amongst themselves and the governments that borrowed the money, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice a technical term: 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out most of the money than you have on deposit, and keeping only a fraction in reserve while telling all your depositors they have their money safe with you. Inventing money based on the magic that it can exist in two places at once.
Today banks in America are allowed to loan out more than ten times the amount they actually hold on deposit. The reserve requirement is 10% for “demand” (checking account) deposits, and 0% for savings accounts. For every $10 deposited in a checking account, they lend $9 of it, while leading the depositor to believe they have all of it. The fact of the matter is that $9 likely becomes a new deposit when it is loaned out, and 90% of that is considered loan-able also. So while you wonder how they get rich charging you 10% interest, it's not 10% a year they make on that amount but likely 10% multiplied by 9.999...
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced an ingenious monetary system based on sticks of polished wood with notches cut along one edge to signify the amount. The stick was split in half lengthwise so each half still had a record of the notches. The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the marketplace where it would continue to circulate as money. Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which, along with the counterfeit protection, gave people confidence to accept these fancy sticks as money. He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed and perceived that it had value. His willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree.
Money is only as valuable as the faith people have in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper. Even gold is valuable only because we believe it.The tally stick system worked well for 726 years! It was the most successful form of non metallic currency in known history, and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of it. The gold holding elite realized it was money outside the power of the money changers (the very thing King Henry had intended), and their fortunes were shrinking because they could not manufacture wealth so easily.What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it? That seems to be what happened after the shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with these notched pieces of wood and then began to berate the system.
The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through wealthy investors buying shares, with tally sticks no less! Even the Bank of England’s nationalization is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
The original investors, whose names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694. It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot. This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to create the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it. With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute through interest. The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars; costly to those fighting them but very profitable to those financing them. So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centers in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned central bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain. Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes. This was much easier for politicians than publicly authorizing more tally sticks.
You would think people would have seen through this, and realized they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core. These central banks have the power to dictate a nation’s economy and become that nation’s real governing force.
What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected for private concerns. The country sells bonds and securities to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for with bank money produced from NOTHING. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase. If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency!
With its formation, the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction. One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses. By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
In times of economic upheaval, the deflation required to stop massive inflation, wealth is rarely destroyed but instead is merely transferred. Those who benefit the very most when money becomes scarce again are those who inflated in the first place and control the quantity of what everyone wants, the money changers. When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable. cont......(next the Rothschilds)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The History of Money Part One: Jesus and The Money Changers
Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth. It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilization, or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably similar way.
Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manilas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.
There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colorful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do. After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly; real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.
BUT ALL IS NOT WELL
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -President James Madison
Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong!
Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!
The truth is, most people don't realize that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.Wars and revolutions have been fought, and great depressions have occured, in the battle over who issues the money. However the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that in any contest, the victor is the author of history; the winning side became, and increasingly continues to be, a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media, and our governments.
While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want in exchange for the goods and services we want from them.An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused. Let's start our exploration of money with-
JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.
Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we read of Him using force during His entire ministry. So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive? For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tithes with a special coin called the half shekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it. It was, to them, the only coin acceptable to God. But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, and the money changers at the temple had a virtual monopoly on them, they were in a buyers market. Like anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear. They were making huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed them to be: "A den of thieves". 1 1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46
Once a certain type of money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of it are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers". cont.............
Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manilas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.
There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colorful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do. After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly; real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.
BUT ALL IS NOT WELL
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -President James Madison
Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong!
Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!
The truth is, most people don't realize that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.Wars and revolutions have been fought, and great depressions have occured, in the battle over who issues the money. However the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that in any contest, the victor is the author of history; the winning side became, and increasingly continues to be, a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media, and our governments.
While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want in exchange for the goods and services we want from them.An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused. Let's start our exploration of money with-
JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.
Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we read of Him using force during His entire ministry. So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive? For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tithes with a special coin called the half shekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it. It was, to them, the only coin acceptable to God. But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, and the money changers at the temple had a virtual monopoly on them, they were in a buyers market. Like anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear. They were making huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed them to be: "A den of thieves". 1 1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46
Once a certain type of money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of it are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers". cont.............
Friday, December 28, 2007
The REAL war on terror
War kills people; you cannot have a war without having people to be at war with. Terrorism, although terrible, can never really be an enemy; a terrorist is an enemy that uses terrorism. Before we can conquer terrorism we must first understand what it is and who it is. I am sure that the first thing that comes to mind when you think of terrorism is 9/11 and the Islamic suicidal attack that led the United States to attack the government of Afghanistan. Clearly the terrorist attack on 9/11 defeated us, but we can free ourselves again. That is if we understand the word “terror”.
Terror is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “1- Intense, overpowering fear, 2- The ability to cause intense fear, 3- One who instills intense fear, and 4- Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes” Terrorism, therefore, is causing intense fear. So who is a terrorist except one who we are extremely afraid of? The terrorist attack on 9/11 changed the majority of the American people; it caused incredible fear that did not exist before. If you are now afraid of Islamic fanatics you are a victim of the terrorist attack.
To overcome that fear, is to defeat terrorism.
Is our military attacking terrorists “over there” in the Middle East? Are they eliminating terrorism? What those questions should picture in your mind is not Islamofascist’s, or rag headed cave men that strap bombs on themselves and commit suicide. Let me re-word the questions:
Are we attacking those who instill intense overpowering fear, in the Middle East? Are we eliminating intimidation and coercion through the threat or commission of violence?
I think a little common sense is needed. How can we defeat those we are afraid of? Doesn’t that require overcoming our fear first? Are we terrified by them? Terrorism is a method to attack your enemy. It is a way to subdue a population; a way to take away their will, yes, their freedom. We have taken away our own freedom exactly to the degree we are afraid. We are our own terrorists. It is impossible for a government to “give” freedom; for the absence of a dictating government is true liberty.
“Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”- Ronald Reagan
We can find wisdom even from those we disagree with. I disagree completely with most of what FDR did, (our own Hugo Chaves), but I agree completely with this:
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” – Franklin D Roosevelt
Another big government elitist that I disagree with a lot said:
“The best way to defeat this enemy in the long run is to deny them recruiting tools, recruiterments, made possible by resentment” George W Bush
The key word there is “resentment”. Most of the people I know who support the occupation of Iraq could care less about resentment from Iraqi’s, or Muslims, toward us. “Kill them all!” “torture them!” “Remember 9/11!” “Support the troops!” I believe a parallel can be drawn between these Americans now and Europeans during the Crusades. Most Americans are vigilante in spirit, including the President, including me, until we stop ourselves. We must determine the difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice is not what gave us the Iraq war, and it definitely does not keep us there. Justice did not give us the Patriot Act, nor the Military Commissions Act. Perhaps vigilantism didn’t give us this war in Iraq either; maybe it was our own fear, our own terror. I did not like Sadaam, and was glad to see him deposed, but obviously he was deposed by the wrong people, us. To me that was worse than leaving him as a tyrant. For the majority of the Iraqi people believe that we replaced Sadaam as the dictator.
The point is; no one can liberate a people except themselves, for liberty is self responsibility. Dictators throughout history invaded countries as liberators, they just never left.
“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud
Terrorism, therefore, cannot be defeated unless we defeat it right here in our own hearts and minds. Stop being afraid and terrorism loses. The government cannot stop terrorism no matter how many wars they fight against it. Terrorism is a security issue, not a military conflict issue, unless we terrorize ourselves into believing that.
“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."- Abraham Lincoln
Terror is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “1- Intense, overpowering fear, 2- The ability to cause intense fear, 3- One who instills intense fear, and 4- Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes” Terrorism, therefore, is causing intense fear. So who is a terrorist except one who we are extremely afraid of? The terrorist attack on 9/11 changed the majority of the American people; it caused incredible fear that did not exist before. If you are now afraid of Islamic fanatics you are a victim of the terrorist attack.
To overcome that fear, is to defeat terrorism.
Is our military attacking terrorists “over there” in the Middle East? Are they eliminating terrorism? What those questions should picture in your mind is not Islamofascist’s, or rag headed cave men that strap bombs on themselves and commit suicide. Let me re-word the questions:
Are we attacking those who instill intense overpowering fear, in the Middle East? Are we eliminating intimidation and coercion through the threat or commission of violence?
I think a little common sense is needed. How can we defeat those we are afraid of? Doesn’t that require overcoming our fear first? Are we terrified by them? Terrorism is a method to attack your enemy. It is a way to subdue a population; a way to take away their will, yes, their freedom. We have taken away our own freedom exactly to the degree we are afraid. We are our own terrorists. It is impossible for a government to “give” freedom; for the absence of a dictating government is true liberty.
“Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”- Ronald Reagan
We can find wisdom even from those we disagree with. I disagree completely with most of what FDR did, (our own Hugo Chaves), but I agree completely with this:
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” – Franklin D Roosevelt
Another big government elitist that I disagree with a lot said:
“The best way to defeat this enemy in the long run is to deny them recruiting tools, recruiterments, made possible by resentment” George W Bush
The key word there is “resentment”. Most of the people I know who support the occupation of Iraq could care less about resentment from Iraqi’s, or Muslims, toward us. “Kill them all!” “torture them!” “Remember 9/11!” “Support the troops!” I believe a parallel can be drawn between these Americans now and Europeans during the Crusades. Most Americans are vigilante in spirit, including the President, including me, until we stop ourselves. We must determine the difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice is not what gave us the Iraq war, and it definitely does not keep us there. Justice did not give us the Patriot Act, nor the Military Commissions Act. Perhaps vigilantism didn’t give us this war in Iraq either; maybe it was our own fear, our own terror. I did not like Sadaam, and was glad to see him deposed, but obviously he was deposed by the wrong people, us. To me that was worse than leaving him as a tyrant. For the majority of the Iraqi people believe that we replaced Sadaam as the dictator.
The point is; no one can liberate a people except themselves, for liberty is self responsibility. Dictators throughout history invaded countries as liberators, they just never left.
“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud
Terrorism, therefore, cannot be defeated unless we defeat it right here in our own hearts and minds. Stop being afraid and terrorism loses. The government cannot stop terrorism no matter how many wars they fight against it. Terrorism is a security issue, not a military conflict issue, unless we terrorize ourselves into believing that.
“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."- Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Republicans, Vote Ron Paul or Else!
Wolf Blitzer:
“What is the chance that you will run as an independent third party candidate?”
Ron Paul:
“Pretty slim, I have no intention, no plans. The system is biased against third parties and independent runs. It isn’t a very democratic process. You run as an independent you cannot get into the debates, it is hard to get on ballots. I’d like to see the promotion of democracy here in this country. We deserve a little bit of improvement here.”
Wolf Blitzer:
“I want to hear the words “zero chance”, but you say “pretty slim””
Ron Paul:
“99.99 percent, I don’t like saying absolutes. But I have no plans and no intentions to do anything outside of the Republican Primary”
Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet $500 on. (Gambling is now legal) Now knowing that, how many of you Bush devotees are going to hold your nose and vote for him in the primaries? Are you loyal to the Republican Party and want the party to win, or hate Ron Paul more than Hillary?
Ron Paul is a social conservative Constitutionalist; think if that when it comes to the Supreme Court. He would bring fiscal responsibility to the Whitehouse. VETO! He is an anti-abortion, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-tax, Christian conservative who has been married for fifty years. And has had tons of life long Democrats switching their party affiliation on the war issue alone! Are we that devoted to a war that has no “good” ending anyway?
If he doesn’t win the nomination you are throwing your vote away. It is that simple. Because if he does not win it, we who have held our noses and endorsed the elitist’s Bush are going to vote with him, even if that means the Libertarian Party, (who might seek Pat Buchanan if Ron Paul won’t accept it, with Ron Paul as his vice-president). The 400,000 member Constitution Party is seeking Ron Paul as well, and whomever he endorsed for President is going to get millions of dollars from his supporters. If that is not the Republican Party, the Party will lose, regardless of James Dobson and his third party threat if Giuliani or Romney wins. The scenario that gave us Bill Clinton, and Woodrow Wilson, is lining up again and it is your fault, not Ron’s, if Bill gets access to the Oval Office amenities again. Our Teddy Roosevelt, or Ross Perot is on your ticket.
The ideal scenario for a third party in 08’ is if Hillary is the D. liberal and Giuliani is the R. liberal with a Ron Paul third party. Things in this country could be looking UP! It is like Thomas Jefferson 2008
“I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none…. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens” - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.
“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” –Thomas Jefferson
“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be” –Thomas Jefferson
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” –Thomas Jefferson
“I sincerely believe that banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” –Thomas Jefferson
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1798
“What is the chance that you will run as an independent third party candidate?”
Ron Paul:
“Pretty slim, I have no intention, no plans. The system is biased against third parties and independent runs. It isn’t a very democratic process. You run as an independent you cannot get into the debates, it is hard to get on ballots. I’d like to see the promotion of democracy here in this country. We deserve a little bit of improvement here.”
Wolf Blitzer:
“I want to hear the words “zero chance”, but you say “pretty slim””
Ron Paul:
“99.99 percent, I don’t like saying absolutes. But I have no plans and no intentions to do anything outside of the Republican Primary”
Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet $500 on. (Gambling is now legal) Now knowing that, how many of you Bush devotees are going to hold your nose and vote for him in the primaries? Are you loyal to the Republican Party and want the party to win, or hate Ron Paul more than Hillary?
Ron Paul is a social conservative Constitutionalist; think if that when it comes to the Supreme Court. He would bring fiscal responsibility to the Whitehouse. VETO! He is an anti-abortion, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-tax, Christian conservative who has been married for fifty years. And has had tons of life long Democrats switching their party affiliation on the war issue alone! Are we that devoted to a war that has no “good” ending anyway?
If he doesn’t win the nomination you are throwing your vote away. It is that simple. Because if he does not win it, we who have held our noses and endorsed the elitist’s Bush are going to vote with him, even if that means the Libertarian Party, (who might seek Pat Buchanan if Ron Paul won’t accept it, with Ron Paul as his vice-president). The 400,000 member Constitution Party is seeking Ron Paul as well, and whomever he endorsed for President is going to get millions of dollars from his supporters. If that is not the Republican Party, the Party will lose, regardless of James Dobson and his third party threat if Giuliani or Romney wins. The scenario that gave us Bill Clinton, and Woodrow Wilson, is lining up again and it is your fault, not Ron’s, if Bill gets access to the Oval Office amenities again. Our Teddy Roosevelt, or Ross Perot is on your ticket.
The ideal scenario for a third party in 08’ is if Hillary is the D. liberal and Giuliani is the R. liberal with a Ron Paul third party. Things in this country could be looking UP! It is like Thomas Jefferson 2008
“I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none…. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens” - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.
“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” –Thomas Jefferson
“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be” –Thomas Jefferson
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” –Thomas Jefferson
“I sincerely believe that banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” –Thomas Jefferson
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1798
Friday, December 14, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Ron Paul, the United Nations, and Iraq
“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure” ~George Washington
Here is what Ron Paul said about why he is on the "get out" side of the Iraq war. It is not because it is politically expedient, it is because it was not a defensive war, and Congress ignored the Constitution in favor of the United Nations to give their responsibility for war to the President. Why did they do it? So they could get out from under the blame if it went wrong.
Ron Paul, "Brushfires of Freedom" September 2007:
"In October 2002 we passed legislation that transferred congressional authority to the President to go to war. This piece of legislation I was strongly opposed to. There are two issues involved. We are in war, we can’t deny it. The two issues are the way we go to war, and whether the war is wise or not. I believe that the war was not a wise, Constitutional, defensive war and thus have been opposed to it. The other side of the coin is how do you do it? This is one thing that the founders were very, very clear on. We as a people would only go to war when the people’s opinions were expressed through their members of congress. That is a Declaration of War by the members of congress, that is should be the ONLY way we go to war….
"When that resolution came to International relations, the committee that I am on, I amended and substituted it with a declaration of war. It was very simple, it was three lines long. I copied it from World War two. And I told them at the time "You are going to have to defeat this because I am going to vote against my amendment. But this is what you should do if you want to go to war.” They didn’t like to vote on it, they didn’t like what I was going to do, and of course no one voted for it. Instead they passed this resolution which transfers the power to go to war at will to the President.
"I want to read to you what the chairman of the committee [Henry Hyde] said immediately after I introduced my resolution; his statement was this (he was putting me down):
"That was the chairman of the committee telling me that our Constitution is anachronistic, it is a waste of time. And then the Democrat minority leader in the committee [Tom Lantos] gave a similar talk, and his strongest word was:
"This is what we are up against. Again, my strength does not come from them; it comes from you, the people who care about our Constitution.
"In that resolution, they never mention Article One Section Eight and declaration of war, that was totally ignored, but they mentioned the United Nations twenty-one times.
"At the same time, and in those months that followed, we did hear in the public a fair amount of criticism about the U.N. The criticism was that the U.N. was not joining on, and they did not respond as our administration wanted them to. It could have been interpreted that this was a strong attack on the United Nations. It wasn’t so much that as a challenge to the United Nations to be stronger and more forceful and let us control the United Nations, but still we were using the United Nations. Even at the State of the Union message, if you listened carefully, it was mentioned four times. He talked about the war and upholding these United Nations resolutions. So we do know that the opposition to the United Nations is not that strong, even though you might hear strong comments coming from our leadership….
"We are still paying far beyond our fair share at the United Nations. We get stuck with responsibility, and the financing, and the burden, and the men lost, all too often. I think the thing we should be concerned about from the United Nations, (the damage that is done to us, and the potential damage that is likely to come), the greatest threat is that we have over these years been willing to turn over to the United Nations much of the control of our foreign policy and when we go to war. And that has to be changed."
We need to get behind this man if we are really serious about keeping our Constitutional Sovereignty. It is no small thing.
Here is what Ron Paul said about why he is on the "get out" side of the Iraq war. It is not because it is politically expedient, it is because it was not a defensive war, and Congress ignored the Constitution in favor of the United Nations to give their responsibility for war to the President. Why did they do it? So they could get out from under the blame if it went wrong.
Ron Paul, "Brushfires of Freedom" September 2007:
"In October 2002 we passed legislation that transferred congressional authority to the President to go to war. This piece of legislation I was strongly opposed to. There are two issues involved. We are in war, we can’t deny it. The two issues are the way we go to war, and whether the war is wise or not. I believe that the war was not a wise, Constitutional, defensive war and thus have been opposed to it. The other side of the coin is how do you do it? This is one thing that the founders were very, very clear on. We as a people would only go to war when the people’s opinions were expressed through their members of congress. That is a Declaration of War by the members of congress, that is should be the ONLY way we go to war….
"When that resolution came to International relations, the committee that I am on, I amended and substituted it with a declaration of war. It was very simple, it was three lines long. I copied it from World War two. And I told them at the time "You are going to have to defeat this because I am going to vote against my amendment. But this is what you should do if you want to go to war.” They didn’t like to vote on it, they didn’t like what I was going to do, and of course no one voted for it. Instead they passed this resolution which transfers the power to go to war at will to the President.
"I want to read to you what the chairman of the committee [Henry Hyde] said immediately after I introduced my resolution; his statement was this (he was putting me down):
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time; declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. To demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation that is not called for, inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”
"That was the chairman of the committee telling me that our Constitution is anachronistic, it is a waste of time. And then the Democrat minority leader in the committee [Tom Lantos] gave a similar talk, and his strongest word was:
“What you are doing, Paul, is frivolous.”
"This is what we are up against. Again, my strength does not come from them; it comes from you, the people who care about our Constitution.
"In that resolution, they never mention Article One Section Eight and declaration of war, that was totally ignored, but they mentioned the United Nations twenty-one times.
"At the same time, and in those months that followed, we did hear in the public a fair amount of criticism about the U.N. The criticism was that the U.N. was not joining on, and they did not respond as our administration wanted them to. It could have been interpreted that this was a strong attack on the United Nations. It wasn’t so much that as a challenge to the United Nations to be stronger and more forceful and let us control the United Nations, but still we were using the United Nations. Even at the State of the Union message, if you listened carefully, it was mentioned four times. He talked about the war and upholding these United Nations resolutions. So we do know that the opposition to the United Nations is not that strong, even though you might hear strong comments coming from our leadership….
"We are still paying far beyond our fair share at the United Nations. We get stuck with responsibility, and the financing, and the burden, and the men lost, all too often. I think the thing we should be concerned about from the United Nations, (the damage that is done to us, and the potential damage that is likely to come), the greatest threat is that we have over these years been willing to turn over to the United Nations much of the control of our foreign policy and when we go to war. And that has to be changed."
We need to get behind this man if we are really serious about keeping our Constitutional Sovereignty. It is no small thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
