Re: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar - Confiscates All Ron Paul Dollar


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhIbj.909$6%.747@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:80017$476f33b6$4b5937f6$20065@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:TrEbj.34620$Pv2.31830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:18e0c$476ebf36$471f67f9$14161@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:sFmbj.807$se5.431@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:3ad79$476dc798$4b5936ba$31184@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q22bj.84329$YL5.79221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2b572$476c9f36$97d59627$19773@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:8z%aj.32279$JD.19753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:835af$476c7b3b$97d59627$21074@xxxxxxxxxx:


<snip>

ange with which to discharge that debt. Am I
missing
something?

A Federal Reserve Note is a promissory note.

A FRN is not a promissory note, since it doesn't
say that you can redeem it for anything. A FRN
is legal tender, which means that creditors must
accept it when their debtors discharge their
debts.

So what happened the day the Federal Reserve
stopped backing their Promissory Bank Notes with
gold. Did they do as many banks before them and
printed more Notes than they had gold to back
them?

Of course.

Then did
it again when there was not enough silver in the
bank vaults to cover them again?

Of course.

The value of a dollar (i.e., the goods and services
you can exchange for it) relies on the magical
power of the pooled belief in the US government to
maintain a orderly society for commerce. This is
not unlike the magical property that you've
attached to silver and gold. But you can't eat
them either.

Gold and especially Silver have many important uses
in manufactureing. For example the silver in you
computer keyboard, or you microwave touch pad.
Silver is one of the most important commodities and
used in nearly every manufacturing process.

And so is titanium, but you're not proposing that as a
base for money. The monetary basis for Au and Ag
relies on their magical properties, not on their
industrial usefulness.

I don't have a problem with titanium or even paladium.
I'm sure both would do much better than what we
currently use. So long as the metal content is close to
the face value.

A dollar is still defined as:
DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States
of the value of one hundred cents, or tenth part
of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a
half grains. Of one thousand
parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one
hundred of alloy. Act of January 18, 1837, ss. 8
& 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont. of Story's L. U. S. 2523, 4;
Wright, R. 162.

Your source is Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the 1856
edition. And it has no applicability.

Just because you don't appreciate it's application
does not mean it is not applicable. The law is the
law untill the law is changed. Right? So when was
the legal definition of a dollar changed? If it has
not been changed, it is still the same.

Law dictionaries are not dispositive. Dig up the
"Act" of 1837, check through the law establishing the
Federal Reserve, and get back to me


Did that law say anything about re-defining what a
dollar is or is not?

Probably. I don't know. This is your claim, so the
burden of proof is on you. Law dictionaries are not the
law, so you'll have to do better than that.

So you want me to go off on a wild goose chase and read
some legislation you heard about that may or may not
exist. If it does exist it may or may not add anything of
value to this discussion.

I'll tell you what, I'll let you read it, if you can find
it. Then if it has any
bearing on what money is or is not. You can tell me about
it. I'll assume you did not understand it, then I'll look
where you tell me I can find it.

It is *your* claim that a law from 1837 trumps the Federal
Reserve system. Since it's your claim that this law is
valid, it's up to you to substantiate it. That's the way
things work.
Your evidence is a quote from a law dictionary. Do you
understand why that's not adequate?

Then I'll read it for myself.

There is nothing I can prove to somebody who does not want
proof. If you are not interested in proof, no amount of it
will change your mind.

So give me some proof. Do you have the text of the 1837
law? Does it have a listing in the United States Code? Has
any court decision been based on it? Does it conflict with
modern monetary statutes?

http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html

This is the (original) 1792 coinage act. It's beyond me what
talismanic power you think it has.

The Congress still has the authority over the regulation of
the Money supply.

True.

The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the Federal
Government, it is a privately owned bank.

The Fed is established by law and operated by Presidential
appointees confirmed by the Senate. It's not a "privately
owned bank."

You have not read the Federal Reserve Act have you.

It's authority is defined by the law, not by their board of
govoners.

It is regulated by the Federal Government, but has never been
audited even once.

OK. But part of it's authority comes from delegation to it by
law.

True, and Congress can take back that authority any time it
decides to do so.

Just as the Congress did with the First and Second Bank's of the
United States.

<snip>

This is true in that if I sign a promissory note to you it
is evidence of my debt, and of your wealth. So at the
same time I am correct, and you are correct. Except for
the fact you are not intellectually honest enough to
acknowledge that fact.

I've asked you some questions; I've asked you to back up
your claims.
I've been nothing but polite. What does it say about you
that you stoop to insult me?

You play word games, and calling you on them is not an insult
anymore than it's an insult for you to think I didn't under
the semantics of your word game.

Whoa! Dial down the paranoia just a tad.

What paranoia. Words have many meanings, common and literal.

And meanings in context. The law has its own language, and it's
best not to confuse its meanings with the "common and literal"
meanings. That's why dictionaries are not a good basis for
argument.

The
history of the word money is long and colorful history of words
people have forgotten
the meanings of. For example "Cash" did not mean paper money,
but gold or silver coin. As in "Cold hard cash".

Very interesting. But not particularly relevant, no?

If you can't back up your claims, then you can't. No need to
go off on me for pointing it out.

I'm having a discussion, with you. You can't prove anything you
say or provide any proof that what I said is factually
challenged.

Generally, if you make a claim, then you must back it up.

If I hold your promissory note, then you're in debt to me.
If you can and will pay your debt, then that is evidence of
some wealth on my part. Neither of these things makes
"promissory note" and "money" opposites.

In absolute terms gold and silver are instruments of wealth,
and a promissory not is an instrument of debt. When the
promissory note is defective then it is the opposite of
money.

I can understand that a defective promissory note might be
considered the opposite of wealth, in that wealth is a positive
economic "force," and the defective note is a loss and
therefore negative economic force. But money is just the medium
of exchange.

So what is being exchanged. Goods and services (property &
labor) for a promise to pay in what? If you accept an I.O.U.
for your labor. You have not been paid. Someone can discharge
their debt to you with an I.O.U. and then you can discharge your
debt to someone else.

If the Federal debt is ever paid, there will not be any Federal
Reserve Notes in circulation.

FRNs are not promissory notes. They are not evidence of debt.
The US does issue debt instruments. These are called treasury
notes and bills. But those can be paid off (and we were on track
to do that in 2000), and there would still be FRNs.

So we have a monitary system designed to create more debt, but
never pay it off.

Don't you think you should at least learn to spell monetary?

The interest on the debt is the lion share of the debt. However
if silver & gold coin or titanium and paladium coins were in
circulation there would not be any interest owed to the Federal
Reserve Bank.

The public debit is about $9 trillion; the money supply is about
$1 trillion.

You mean Congress' debt is about $9 trillion.

No, Congress votes for it; the President signs it into law. They're our
creatures, like it or not. It's the public debt.

the public debt in the
form of credit card and consumer debt is something over $20 trillion
dollars.

This is private debt.

Then there are the perhaps another $20 trillion dollars in
foreign banks used
primarily for buying and selling oil around the world. The dollar is
our most
important export. It costs us about 4 cents to print $100 FRN and we
export it for $100 worth of oil. But we don't get $100 worth of oil
do we? When we take into account 90 years of inflation we only get
about $7 worth of oil.

How barrels of oil does $100 buy? About one, right? How many bushels of
wheat does $100 buy? About 10. What was the ratio 90 years ago?

Money would be in circulation, not borrowed into circulation. A
simple concept with great resistence. Why? Because the Federal
Reserve can not charge interest and make a profit on such a
system.

For example the Bonds Lincoln floated to fund the reconstruction
have never been redeemed. They still draw interest. Something
like $262 has been paid in interest for every $1 lincoln
borrowed. Why would someone cash them in @ 4% interest they pay
face value about every 18 years.

1. Reconstruction didn't get started until after the Civil War
ended. Lincoln was already dead.


So he was already dead. It was his policy and wish to borrow the
money. It really doesn't matter if he was alive or dead when the
money was actually borrowed.

This is exactly why I have a problem with your arguments. You've stated
that Lincoln floated funds for Reconstruction. He couldn't have. Not
only do Presidents not have the power to do so, he was dead during
Reconstruction. But that doesn't even slow you down. No matter, you
say, it was his policy and he wished to borrow the money. Well, it
couldn't have been his policy because he was dead. And if wishes were
facts, I'd be young, rich, and handsome.

The amount of interest paid on those bonds which are still outstanding
is still the same.

So you claim. Can you back that up? Issue numbers? The market on
which they're traded? Anything?

2. Lincoln was President. Presidents can't float bonds.

3. Please tell me where Reconstruction Bonds are traded. I don't
believe they've never been redeemed.

4. How do you get $262? Please show your work.

I went to a mortgage calculation website $1 @ 4% compounded interest
for 142 years yelds $262

I shouldn't have quibbled. 142 years takes us to 1865, the year the war
ended. I doubt that any bonds were floated before the Radical
Republicans took over in 1867 and probably not after Johnson's
impeachment. Do you know the issue date on these bonds? Or why they
didn't have a maturity period?

Pay perticular attention to section 5 on the two principal
qualities essential to the validity of a note;

It's an unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. A
promissory note for $20 is nominally worth twenty dollars. A
defective promissory note for $20 is nominally worth negative
twenty dollars, in some sense. The defective note might be
considered the opposite (in accounting terms) of the sum of
money represented by the note's face value. But that doesn't
make promissory notes (espeicially non-defective ones) the
opposite of money. They're in different categories.

Why not? The only thing that gives them value is federal law.

What's the antecedent to "them"? Promissory notes? What does
this comment mean? Money is a medium of payment; promissory notes
are debt. They're different things, not oppposite things. Do you
mean that promissory notes and legal tender are opposites?

And nothing below makes a promissory note the opposite of
money. Unless you have your own definition of opposite. Or
money.

PROMISSORY NOTE, contracts. A written promise to pay a
certain sum of money, at a future time, unconditionally. 7
Watts & S. 264; 2 Humph. R. 143; 10 Wend. 675; Minor, R. 263;
7 Misso. 42; 2 Cowen, 536; 6 N. H. Rep. 364; 7 Vern. 22.
A promissory note differs from a mere acknowledgment of debt,
without any promise to pay, as when the debtor gives his
creditor an I 0 U.
(q.v.) See 2 Yerg. 50; 15 M. & W. 23. But see 2 Humph. 143; 6
Alab. R. 373.
In its form it usually contains a promise to pay, at a time
therein expressed, a sum of money to a certain person therein
named, or to his order, for value received. It is dated and
signed by the maker. It is never under seal.

2. He who makes the promise is called the maker, and he to
whom it is made is the payee. Bayley on Bills, 1; 3 Kent,
Com, 46.

3. Although a promissory note, in its original shape, bears
no resemblance to a bill of exchange; yet, when indorsed, it
is exactly similar to one; for then it is an order by the
indorser of the note upon the maker to pay to the indorsee.
The indorser is as it were the drawer; the maker, the
acceptor; and the indorsee, the payee. 4 Burr. 669; 4 T. R.
148; Burr. 1224.

4. Most of the rules applicable to bills of exchange, equally
affect promissory notes. No particular form is requisite to
these instruments; a promise to deliver the money, or to be
accountable for it, or that the payee shall have it, is
sufficient. Chit. on Bills, 53, 54.

5. There are two principal qualities essential to the
validity of a note; first, that it be payable at all events,
not dependent on any contingency; 20 Pick. 132; 22 Pick. 132
nor payable out of any particular fund. 3 J. J. Marsh. 542; 5
Pike, R. 441; 2 Blackf. 48; 1 Bibb, 503; 1 S. M. 393; 3 J. J.
Marsh. 170; 3 Pick. R. 541; 4 Hawks, 102; 5 How. S. C. R.
382.

And, secondly, it is required that it be for the payment of
money only; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 94; 4 Watts, R. 400; 11 Verm.
R. 268; and not in bank notes, though it has been held
differently in the state of New York. 9 Johns. R. 120; 19
Johns. R. 144.

Notice "it is required that it be for the payment of money
only;"

"Money" does not mean with another promissory note, but in gold
or silver coin.

I'm beginning to understand. You think that FRNs are promissory
notes and not money. But you're wrong. FRNs don't promise
redemption in anything, and by law, they're money. Even if you
don't like it.

They did promise redemption,

Who's "they"? Under what section of the USC? With what?


Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable for lawful money why is that so
difficult
to understand?


but when they print more FRN's than can
be covered by real money. They must change the terms and conditions.

First they gave us the progressive income tax. (1913) They said it
would never
be more than 1 or 2%. This is called taxation by misrepresentation.

Then (1916) they gave us the Federal Reserve, which is neither
Federal nor has
any reserve.

Then (1934) they stole all of our gold coins and gave us federal
reserve notes
instead and promised to redeem them for lawful money.

Then, they gave us (in 1963) , federal reserve notes with no
promise to pay in
"lawful money".

(1965) they gave us copper sandwiches in place of silver coins. But
they still
looked kind of like silver coins.

In 1977, Russell Munk, Asst General Counsel for the U.S. Treasury,
admitted that federal reserve notes are not dollars.

In 1985, the Ron Paul revolution began with the Gold and Silver
Bullion Coin act.

Ron and his fellow Congressmen gave us back honest money. They
created a gold and silver system to challenge the worthless FRN's
and its companion in crime, progressive taxation administered by
our friends at the IRS.

Ron Paul gave us back gold and silver coins-honest money in which
actual wealth could be stored and exchanged. The gold coins said on
its face $50. The silver coin said on its face one dollar.

So some American people here in Nevada began using these gold and
silver coins in business.

But the IRS said no to these folks. If you try to actually use
these legal tender
gold and silver coins in business, we will prosecute you. Because
this would destroy our system of progressive taxation coupled with
inflation, which is the
way that we steal the wealth of the American people. Tax the rich!
Well, everyone is in the rich bracket when a frn is only worth 7
cents.

Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-185, 99 Stat.
1177 (Dec. 17,
1985), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7) through (a)(10), 31
U.S.C. § 5112(i),
31 U.S.C. § 5116(a)(3), and amending 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d) and 31
U.S.C. § 5132
(a)(1), has helped the American Gold Eagle to quickly become one of
the world's
leaders in gold bullion coin. Produced from gold mined in the
United States, American Eagles are imprinted with their gold
content and legal tender "face" value.

The act was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1985. One requirement is
that all gold used
in minting the coins would be from "newly mined domestic sources".

So here is the most modern law defining "Dollar's" as lawful money
i.e. Gold and
Silver coins. And they are legal tender in the United States.

Thanks for your economicopolitical point of view. Now how about
answering my questions and backing up your claims? You can start
with Reconstruction Bonds that supposedly were never redeemed. You
can reply to the evidence I cited from the USC that overrides the
1792 coinage act. You can tell me in simple terms how a debt
instrument and the means of paying that debt are somehow "opposites."

A debt instrument is proof of debt FRN's are proof of the debt of the
Congress to the Federal Reserve, a private bank.

FRNs are not proof of debt. You're thinking of treasury notes and
treasury bonds. Congress doesn't carry debt; it finds others to
shoulder the burden. The Federal Reserve is not a private bank. It's a
public bank regulator.

Then you simply don't understand how our money is created. Are you saying
the Federal Reserve is a brance of the Federal government?

Gold and Silver coin are money and are not borrowed into existence.

True.

They are
the opposite of a debt instrument because they were not created from
debt.

You've confused the money supply with the public debt.

You can buy bread, milk, and butter with both FRN's and Silver or gold
coins,
but FRN's will lose value over time because of inflation. Silver and
gold coins will not lose value over time due to inflation

No, their values will fluctuate though.

Notice I said over time due to inflation. Of coarse if you don't know what
causes inflation, you wouldn't understand this statement. Since inflation
is
caused by printing excess money, causing the existing money to lose value.

Gold and silver are immune to this type of fluctuation. If suddenly there
were
an abundant new supply of silver or gold the price of the silver or gold
would
fall as has happened in the past. These are short term and local
fluctuations.

After that, we can get around to the new stuff. You can cite the
court cases in which people were prosecuted for using legal tender in
commercial transactions. Hint: the IRS wouldn't be involved in any
such case. That would be the United States Treasury, probably
through the Secret Service.


I guess you are not as smart as you think you are.

I'll grant you that.

The IRS did try to prosicute

It's prosecute, and the IRS does not prosecute people. That would be
the office of the United States Attorney.

Semantics. The IRS brought the case, for supposed tax evasion, which it
lost.

some people 5 people with 161 counts agianst them.

Please tell me the title: US v Who?

Oh, never mind. The defendant was Robert Kahre in Las Vegas. And of
course, the case was brought by the USA, not the IRS.

After 4 months in trial the jury returned not one conviction on even
one count.

And, of course, no was prosecuted for "using legal tender." They were
prosecuted for not paying taxes. What Kahre did was very clever. He
paid his employees in US coinage, gold coins to be exact. And then
everyone pretended that this income was equal to the face value of the
coins and not on the value of the gold in the coins, which was much
more.

When the paper FRN money has lost value virtually every year and the gold
has not lost it's value.

The jury refused to convict. I doubt I would have voted to convict,
either. If the gov says its coins are legal tender and gives a face
value, then they're stuck with it.

What was your point here? That people were prosecuted for using legal
tender? They weren't.

The gold coins were legal tender coins, they can be depositied into their
bank accounts. But the difference between FRN's and lawful money is clear.

6. A promissory note payable to order or bearer passes by
indorsement, and although a chose in action, the holder may
bring suit on it in his own name. Although a simple contract,
a sufficient consideration is implied from the nature of the
instrument. Vide 5 Com. Dig. 133, n., 151, 472 Smith on Merc.
Law, B. 3, c. 1; 4 B. & Cr. 235 7 D. P. C. 598; 8 D. P. C.
441 1 Car. & Marsh. 16. Vide Bank note; Note; Reissuable
note.

United States Federal Reserve Notes will be
worthless the same day the United States is shut
down.

Well, of course. What's your point? You think
that the same day the US is shut down you'll be
able to eat Silver Liberties?

I will be able to trade silver coin or bullion for
food or energy unless the government passes a law
confiscating all gold and silver.

The hypothetical here is that it's the day after the
US is shut down. The gov won't be passing any laws on
that day.

That's very good. What happens on that day to all the
people who have their life savings evidenced by federal
reserve notes in the bank? It'd be the same as when the
Confederacy lost the war and the people had trunks full
of worthless Confederate paper money.

Depending on the situation, you might not be able to
rtade bullion either. But your point is obviously true.
So what?

It would be a little
ironic for a government that was formed to protect
private property rights, to
treat the private property of it's citizens as loot.

And your point?

Every government eventually fails, when they forget why
they were formed, and what the duty of a public servant
is. To often they consider themselves the master and
the public the servant.

Every government has either failed or hasn't yet failed.
Does anyone dispute that?

When has silver or gold ever failed as a currency? Not
since they were first used in trade have either one been
worthless in exchange of goods or services.

Silver and gold are worthless in commerce under two
conditions: 1) there are no commodities to exchange (e.g.,
in a famine), and 2) there is so little social order that
exchanges can't be made safely and in good faith.

The fact that someone criminal or government agent would
steal the gold or silver is not proof that it is worthless,
but of it's value, and their lack of respect for your
property rights.

Of course not. It just makes your claim of the superiority of
bullion suspect. That's all.

In what way?

Under certain conditions (i.e., civil disorder, but not too much
civil disorder), it's better to have bullion. Otherwise, it's a
drag.

It is no more difficult to carry a Gold or Silver Certificate than
it is to carry a Federal Reserve Note.

This is true. Except that under the condition I cited (civil
disorder, but not too much civil disorder), no one you do business
with is going to trust and accept a certificate issued by a
non-functioning government.

The last time that happened people were taking their gold and silver
certificates to the banks, but the government printed more
certificates than they could redeem.

And when the gov can't redeem them, no one will accept your certificates.
They'll demand bullion.

That's very true! Except the government can pass a law that requires a
person
to accept a worthless bank note in payment of debt. It's happened twice in
the
United States that I know of. Once during the revolutionary war, then again
in
1933 and that law is still in effect.

Except for the banker who must
carry a supply of Silver and Gold coins to back the paper. Else a
run on the bank will ultimately be the result.

Hence it's safer to put your trust in gold or silver as a
store of value than it is in one government or another not
to debase it's own currency.

Bullion is not a free store of value. You must protect it
and assay it. That said, there are certainly many historical
examples in which governmental legal tender has lost its
value while bullion retain its own.

I don't recall anybody making the claim that bullion is a
free store of value.

In other words, it may or may not be "safer to put your trust
in gold or silver as a store of value." That's all.

It is much safer when you consider that paper money loses value
due to the over production of paper money. As is currently
happening now.

The value of bullion fluctuates as well.

How much has bullion fluctuated in the last 100 years?

In 1907 god was about $20.66/oz. It's now about $795.25.

When you figure that the dollar is only worth about 4% of it's
purchasing power in 1913 due to inflation that gold would be
worth about $32/oz The same goes for silver. There is about
$14 of silver in the old silver dollars. So one silver dollar can
still buy more than 4 gallons of gas in many parts of the country.

Go ahead. Try pumping 4 gallons of gas and offering the attendant a
silver dollar. You've got the Bobby Kahre problem in reverse.

I'm talking of the absolute value of the silver dollar compared to the
absolute cost of gasoline today. If we still used the 90% U.S. silver
dollars you could buy 3 1/2 gallons of gasoline.

What you've failed to take into account in all this is that incomes are
part of inflation. So, yeah. The purchasing power of the dollar has
declined in 1913, but inflation has increased my wages since then.
(Well, I wasn't alive in 1913, but you get my drift.)

In 1913 it was possible for the husband to work, and the wife stay home
and raise the children. Today it is extremely difficult for most households
to earn enough to support a family.

Only when you compare it to FRN's

compared to
FRN's. Gold is more volitle because there is not nearly as much
gold and it's price can easily be manipulated. Try to manipulate
the price of silver and you will
find as the Hunt Brother's did that there are unimaginable
stockpiles of silver around the planet, and mines waitting for the
right price to be opened
up on short notice.

There was a moment when Silver spiked to over $50 an ounce, but
that was a tiny blip and it was the speculators that got burned for
the most part.

Governments hate competition! Of the 3 most
important monopolies, Money is the first most
important monopoly.

And your point?

I was wondering if you have a point? or if you are
pointless.

Even though I asked first, I'll answer you. I'm trying
to understand what you're talking about. You either say
things that don't make sense (FRN = promissory note, debt
instruments as the opposite of money, dictionary
definitons of the dollar, etc.) or you say things that
are stone cold obvious (failed governments have worthless
currency, US legal tender is a monopoly).

<shrug>
Maybe it's just me.
</shrug>

I think it's just you. Since these are not complicated
issues. With thousands of years of history to provide
examples.

These are extremely complicated issues. You are free to
oversimiplify them in your own mind. But I'll point to my
paragraph above my <shrug>.

If you can convince somebody they can not understand simple
economics, then you have the power to tell them the Emperor
wears a beautyful suit of clothes. Out of fear of looking
foolish they may even go along with you.

Yet anyone can read a very good book that explains the
history of modern economics so that virtually anyone can
understand what the Federal Reserve is who created it, how
they lied to the Congress and the American people, as well as
their ultimate aims.

The Creature from Jekyll Island, A second look at the Federal
Reserve System by G. Edward Griffin.

Great. Is this the same guy who's responsible for "A World
Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" and "Capitalist
Conspiracy"?

I'll pass.

Ignorance is bliss.

Then G. Edward Griffin is in hog heaven.

Robert

Why do you believe you are so knowledgeable on the subject?

I don't. I never claimed to be. *You're* the true believer.

I'd be surprised if you know what is the actual cause of
"inflation" if you do know what causes it I don't believe you'd
prove it here.

I don't know. *You're* the one who claims to know.

There may be no reason other than the underlying mathematics of the
social forces involved. See my discussion of the power law with the
true believer in the ownership of property being the source of all
economic harm.

Sounds like communist doctrine. Property owners take much better care
of their property and the environment than people with no property
ownership rights.

To be honest with you, I couldn't follow the doctrine as hard as I
tried. Something to do with economic rent and rights.

What do you of rights? I'll bet you support group rights over individual
rights.
Just a guess. Define people by the group they belong to.

There'a a lot of data out there. I choose to winnow my sources by
refusing to consider people who push the laetrile cancer-cure scam.

I'm curious what kind of filter you use to winnow you sources. You
don't actually have to read your sources to determine if they are
correct or not. I suspect you judge your sources based on the title or
subject as much as anything else.

I'll admit to winnowing my sources based on the smell test. And it's
possible to go wrong here, for instance I might dismiss Shockley's work
on semiconductors based on his racial theories.

I know a woman cured of MS by using sea salt and met a clinical
nutritionist an MD who confirmed that sea salt can cure MS.

This is another example that supports my skepticism. You're simply too
credulous. You know about a woman whose MS went into remission after
she ingested sea salt. And you've met an MD who claims that sea salt
can cure MS. Does sea salt cure MS? Not on the basis of an anecdote
and an appeal to authority.

It is known that sea salt contains 80 minerals and elements. It is also
know
that humans have used sea salt as their primary source of salt for thousands
of years. I should be no great stretch to understand that sea salt is
likely more
healthy that pure sodium cloride in a persons diet.

I don't know that sea salt will cure MS, but I do know that the medical
establishment is less interested in low cost preventitive measures than it
is
making a profit. Not like the good old days when most hospitals were run by
one church or another.

Of coarse

<sorry excuse="the devil">
So it was coarse sea salt? Why didn't you say so?
</sorry>

since many MD's will say it's impossible. It must be impossible.

To be fair, what they actually say is that there's no scientific
evidence that it happens.

When it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to have a new treatment
approved. Why would anyone invest the money in research that can never
pay back the money invested? The FDA prevents more treatments than it
allows, and the treatment it allows most often have serious and dangerous
side effects.

I am willing to be convinced. But I suspect all you've got is
received knowledge that you haven't bothered to check. Why didn't
you find the USC concerning coinage?

I read it a long time ago

That's fine (no pun on silver intended). This is a newsgroup intended
for wide-ranging conversation; not a court of law bound by rules of
evidence. But I find it curious that your conviction seems to be
inversely proportional to your research effort.

I think you could say the same thing about anybody's research efforts. If I
build a hybrid/electric bicycle using an electric motor of my own design.
It's sucsess will be based on my research efforts, and my talents in a
modest
machine shop.

and I've read a great many other papers on the subject of silver as
money

and even silver as the most effective anti-biotics on the market.

Silver is indeed an effective antibiotic. It kills living things.
Silver is a toxic heavy metal like lead and mercury, it accumulates in
the body where it has no known use and is eliminated only slowly. It's a
known carcinogen.

Really? what evidence do you have of silver's toxic effect on humans? In
the middle ages royalty would file silver into their food. Causing their
skin
to turn blue, thus the term (bluebloods) aside from the undesirable effect
of
turning blue I have read no reports of causing cancer or other serious
health
effects.

Please don't let your credulity lead you into ingesting silver.

I have made and used a simple device that made an ionized silver solution.
Not a true colloidal silver generator, but would create a small percentage
of silver colloids in solution. That from friday to monday cured a very bad
abcessed tooth. I saved $70 on anti-biotics, and it worked faster than the
anti-
biotics would have worked. With no side effects.

Robert


.