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


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fb5cj.1030$6%.1014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:f3b45$477097ad$62118be6$5517@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Lx_bj.85110$YL5.11770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:46aba$47705a0f$62118be6$457@xxxxxxxxxx:


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


<snip>

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.

Do you know what usery is?

I know what usury is.

it's when you loan somebody money when
you know they can never pay off the loan.

No, it isn't. It's charging someone more interest on a loan than
allowed by law.

So if the law says you can charge 100% interest per year, you
believe that would not be usery?

It took the Federal Reserve 20 years to bankrupt the Congress

The Congress cannot be bankrupt. Do you mean the country?

One of the Definitions of the United States is the Congress. I could
have said the United States but I choose to be much more specific.
If you have read any amount of monitary history of the United States.
You would know that the Roosevelt declared a State of National
Emergency and confiscated all the gold and making it's holding illegal
because the Congress required it to pay it's obligations.

At the time the Common law which was the law of the land was replaced
by Administrative law.

There is enough debt in FRN's to buy every ounce of gold on the planet
3 times over.

So what? FRNs are not debt instruments. They're legal tender.

What do you believe a debt instrument to be? A "Note" is a debt
instrument

If you care to do the math the approximate world gold
reserve is known. In fact it's more certain than the amount of FRN's
floating in the
world economy. Any estimate you can make on the world supply of FRN's
is likely short by at least half.

You're right about FRNs and the gold supply. That's why we don't tie
FRNs to gold. Our economy is bigger than the world gold supply, and it
requires more money to run our economy than there is gold in the world.

No it doesn't. If we tied our commerce to silver and gold we might pay 15
cents
per gallon of gasoline, and 5 cents per loaf of bread. Or $500 for a new
car.

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?

How did we define the rich 90 years ago? Was somebody rich if they
made $40,000 a year?

You bet.

The progressive income tax is not indexed for inflation

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?

No I discovered these a long time ago when my curiosity was just
starting to get serious. I was spending a few hours every week at
Emory Law Library and Federal Repository. I'm sure a smart person can
find that information again if I found it as a novice.

Uh huh.

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?

Lawful money turns out to be more FRNs. FRNs haven't been redeemable
for anything else for a long time.

Look up the term for lawful money. If you find a source that defines
it as FRN's please let me know where you found it. I'd be very, very
interested.

The Federal Reserve Act was amended in the 1930s to make FRNs legal
tender.
In 1934, the Gold Reserve Act eliminated redemption of FRNs in gold and
withdrew gold coinage from circulation, and in 1967, silver redemption was
eliminated (31 U.S.C. § 405 a-3), and most silver coinage was stopped. So
FRNs became legal money, and all other forms became unavailable or
illegal.

Legal Tender and Lawful Money describe different concepts. The United
States
was bankrupt and could not afford to provide a stable monitary device.
FRN's
are being printed in hugh sums to pay for the war in Iraq and Afganistan.
They
enter the economy through the defence contractors and agents who supply the
military with the things nessesary to support the war.

The Supreme Court upheld these changes. I found two cases that looked
like
they may be of interest: Norman v. Baltimore, 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
(upholding Congress' power over monetary polilcy) and Nortz v. United
States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935) (upholding forced redemption of gold
certificate in paper currency). I haven't read them, though, just some
commentary.


Let me guess they never did re-define what a dollar is. Calling something a
dollar is not the same thing as having a dollar.


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.

Or it can be caused by shortages in the economy. Or lack of
confidence in the economy which pushes up long-term interest rates.

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.

I'm glad you can see the difference so clearly.

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.

It doesn't cost any more to be precise. The USA brought the case;
not the IRS. The case was about tax evasion, not using legal tender.


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

If they are not dollars what are they?

I don't know the context of Munk's comment, so I'm not sure what he meant.
But the Assistant General Counsel for the US Treasury doesn't make law.

It was a slow and calculated process.
Build up somebody's confidence in a classic bait & switch. It has
been tried time and again for over 600 years in Europe. Each time
with the same result. It was a real coup when the European Bankers
convinced the Pope to go along with it. I don't remember which one.
It shouldn't be hard to find out.

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.

Um, so?

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.

Yes and yes and no one was prosecuted for conducting commerce with
them.

They were prosicuted because they didn't pay the supposed income tax.
That somehow these legal tender coins with dollar face values much
lower their value in FRN's but as reported above 1977, Russell Munk,
Asst General Counsel for the U.S. Treasury, admitted that "federal
reserve notes are not dollars."

Again, Munk's opinion is not dispositive. You can understand why these
clowns were prosecuted, but they seem to have found a legal loophole. I'm
not sure what comfort you're taking from the non-convictions (besides
enjoying the gov taking a beating). All it means that you and I have to
pick up the tab for the deadbeats.

You mean we are not already picking up the tab with the cost of inflation?
Or picking up the tab because of runaway spending in the congress everytime
a congressman wants to fund some feel good project to buy votes at home?

Who picked up the tab with over 900 earmarks in the last budget signed into
law? If the congress actually had to pay for what it wants rather than
print the
money. Spending would be much easier to control.


If they are not dollars, what are they?

They're legal tender.

Legal Tender laws are laws to force the people to accept worthless money in
exchange for goods and services. If the money actually had worth there
would
be no need for legal tender laws. Why? because merchants go into business
to exchange goods and services for money.

I admitt I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack.

OK.

So if I can understand this I'm sure I'm not the only one.
What happens if
the U.S. Attorney tries and fails to prosicute others with the same
charges for
doing the same thing.

Pros*e*cute. They'll change the law. What do you think?

Oh! shall I flag every word you type or don't spell correctly? My English
Teacher at DeVry said it was very common for technically oriented people
to be poor spellers and literary types to be poor in math skills.

It's common in usenet if you have difficulty attacking someones logic,
attack their spelling or something else.

But the difference between FRN's and lawful money is clear.

The difference under the law is zero; FRNs are a proper subset of
lawful money.

The difference in commerce is zero, except for the fact that one almost
always loses value and the other almost always increases in value when
compared with each other.

In 1913 put $100 in the bank with interest, and put five $20 gold pieces
in a coffee can and see which one is worth more over time.

Yet you can not show anywhere that FRN's have been defined as lawful
money. Unless the definition were changed not only by custom, but by
magic.

Legal money is legal tender. FRNs became legal tender during the New Deal
via amendments to the Federal Resserve Act, and the competition currency
was wiped out (or nearly so).

Legal money and Lawful money are not the same thing.

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.

I can't seem to get you to focus on a point. I thought we were
talking about using bullion as money, but then instead you seemed to
endorse having "lawful money" backed by and redeemable for gold or
silver (since it's "no more difficult to carry"). When I point out
how useless that is, you say "very true!"

I also endorce electronic gold and silver accounts given proper
safeguards. Still I'd want the feel of gold and silver coin in my
pocket and some in my coffee can.

Fine. You can have that weighty feeling all you want.

Do you understand why I'm having a hard time following?

Yes I do. You have been well conditioned. An end product of some 90
years of conditioning on a population for concerned about day to day,
and less concerned about the long term. You seem to put a whole lot
of faith in the government, it's agents, and instrumentalities to
think for you.

No, I have little faith in the gov, but I recognize reality. FRNs are
legal tender; they're not promissory notes. This may be a good thing or
it
may be a bad thing, but it is the real thing. I know the difference
between public debt and private debt. I know the difference between
public
debt and the money supply. I know what usury is. You seem to know none
of
these things.

In short the Matrix has you.

You understand that The Matrix is a fictional movie, right?

It's an allegory, a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning
through
concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the
guise
of another.

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.

I've got some of those. How much gas do you think I can buy with
one?

Unlikely the gas station attendent knows what they are worth, unless
you ask them. Better to sell it on Ebay or to a reputable coin dealer
or even somebody who'll give you fair market value for the silver
minus the collectable added value. Even if the fellow is ignorant of
the true value of
the coin I'd bet you could buy more than a dollars worth of gas.

We're talking about using silver coins as legal tender. A smart pump
jockey might take my silver dollar and put his own money in the till, but
that's a differnt scenario -- essentially a numismatic transaction
followed
by a fuel transaction. A stickler pump jocket will insist that a dollar
is
a dollar is a dollar.

No I was not talking about using the silver coin as legal tender, I was
talking
about trading value for value. I had little trouble spending hundreds of
$10
Silver Libertys for gasoline and groceries. Since they were "not" legal
tender
I had not right to expect the merchant to accept them. In which case I'd
pull
out FRN's to make my purchase. Those $10 Silver Libertys are now worth
about $20.

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.

And your point? There are more poor people in the country today than
in 1913? Really?

Are you really surprised why this has happened?

You really think we're poorer as a country today than we were in 1913?

How do you define poor? The number of homeless? the number of people
on public support? Or perhaps the average savings rate of most Americans.
In 1913 more people had net worth. Today with credit cards and consumer
debt the average American is not as well off. If you define a person's
standard
of living as a measure of their relitive poverty or wealth you measure
apples
to oranges.

We were warned that
it would happen again. It has happened in the past, but we did not
heed our own history. Or even Thomas Jefferson's warning.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue
of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the
banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

The above is from Jefferson? Could I have a cite?


Thomas Jefferson is easy to look up. 5 seconds after googling Thomas
Jefferson & Banks brought up this link, and these quotes.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level;
because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our
hands,
and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

" "Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money
itself."
--Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every
dollar of paper emitted." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208

"It is a [disputed] question, whether the circulation of paper, rather than
of specie, is a good or an evil... I believe it to be one of those cases
where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by
ruin."
--Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:409

Specie as a National Resource"
A wonderful article continues below.

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?

What do I (know?) of rights? I know a bit about the Bill of Rights.

I'll bet you support group rights over individual rights.

What are "group rights"?

A way to divide and conquer a population with their own permission.

<sigh>
Perhaps you could give me an example of a group right.
</sigh>

We have many such laws. For example if I want to rent a room in my house
to share expences. I can not select who I want to stay with me and
advertise
accordingly. I might have the right not to rent to someone who is gay
depending
on where I live. I do have the right not to rent to someone who smokes. I
do
not have the right to rent my room based on a persons religion, race, creed,
sex,
or if they have children or not. The Americans with Disabilities Act
creates more
group rights. If I drug test prospective employee's for a carpentry job
because my
insurance company demands it. Do I want to hire someone who takes dilantin
to
treat a seizure disorder? If he has a seizure and falls off the ladder or
roof my
business could be ruined. You might be surprised how many employers are
more
concerned about legally prescribed drugs and much less worried about some
illegal
substances like marijauana. I'll pay the extra money to test for all drug
groups.

I can think of two rights that are exercised in concert with others,
collective bargaining and bringing class action suits.

What of a person's natural rights. You know the ones mentioned in the
Bill of Rights.

I can think of rights that depend on group membership but which are
exercised individually, e.g., the right to vote and protection from
certain kinds of discrimination.

There is no right to vote in the United States. You will not see it
defined anywhere in the Constitution.

Have you read the Constitution? It might be worth your while.

Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each
State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most
numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Who decides what the qualifications of an Elector are? The states can pass
laws defining who an elector is or is not. As long as the law is uniform,
it may
include someone of a certian age or other standards.

Amendment 17:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each
State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
shall
have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
legislatures.

Presidents are technically chosen by electors, which are chosen according
to the rules of the state legislatures. Every state provides for direct
election of electors, so you'll have to go the state constitutions for
this
right.

Every state provides for direct election for members of the most numerous
branch of their legislatures. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees a
republican form of government for each state, and since Reconstruction
this
has explicitly included suffrage. Baker v Carr (one-man, one vote) is
based on this principle.

Amendment 15, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,
or
previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment 24, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure
to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment 26, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age
or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of age.

I should have been less general. There is no right to vote for President of
the
United States. A discussion a few months ago about voting rights. It's not
an
issue I worry very much about.

Most other rights are individual rights, like freedom of speech, due
process, and the right to privacy.

A right to privacy? To your private papers i'm aware of but privacy itself?

What about a person's right to their property?

See the 5th Amendment. See local laws against theft.

This would include intellectual property? and one's labor also?

I support them all.

Just a guess.

I can't tell what you're guessing at. Did I answer your implied
question?

You skirted the question very skillfully.

What did I leave unanswered?

A person's natural rights include deciding what is best for themselves,
their
own bodies and self defence from intruders. So long as they don't infringe
on somebody elses Rights and Liberties.

For example I have the right to put in my body what I believe is best for
me, or
I have the right to use deadly force when I am threatend with violence
agianst me
or my family in my home or outside my home.

Define people by the group they belong to.

No thanks.

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.

It's a hypothesis. A good deal weaker than "sea salt can cure MS."
Has it been tested?

It must have been because the woman I talked to who claimed to be
cured of MS was only a very short conversation. The taxi fare was
less than $5. So I
looked up "MS" and "Cure" on the interent. It was only a couple of

years later
when I asked Dr. Cantrell about it. She stated matter of factly that
MS was cureable with real sea salt not processed and refined sea salt.
The type available
in many grocery stores. Real sea salt looks a dirty brownish color.

I don't know that sea salt will cure MS,

I thought you knew someone was cured by sea salt and an MD who
confirmed this.

I believe it to be so, but since I have no way to prove it

If you don't mind my saying so, you believe a lot of things you can't
prove.

The ability to prove something does not make it untrue. I'm sure you and
everybody else believe things you/they can not prove. The existence or not
of a Creator for example.

I must maintain some level
of skepticisim. That and I'd hate to be charged with giving medical
advice without a license.

I think your misguided opinions on medical issues are protected.

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.

Which good old days were these? The pre-polio-vaccine days? The
Spanish Influenza days?

Interesting thing about the polio vaccines. We gave them in the U.S.
but Europe did not.

This is nonsense. Particularly for the oral vaccine.

The polio epidemic ended in Europe about the same
time it did in the U.S.

I haven't been vaccinated for anything in 30 years, since I got
out of the military. I'm of above average health.

Vaccinations are usually for childhood diseases.

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.

There are more non-efficacious and unsafe treatments than there are
safe and effective ones. I'm not defending the FDA, but their bad
policy decisions don't reflect on the scientifc method.

I used to think science was above politics, that was before the world
wide global warming campaign. I'm old enough to remember the "Global
cooling campaign". In 20 or 30 years there will be another chicken
little campaign.

Oh, good. A climate change denier. Is there no crackpot position you
won't take?

Who said I denied climate change? I don't believe there is any evidence
that
man has measureably changed the climate.

Of course science isn't immune from politics. It's a human endeavor.

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.

But I'm not talking about anybody; I'm talking about you. I'm not
talking about electric bicycles; I'm talking about your posts. See
below.

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?

Google "silver toxicity." The disease is called systemic argyria.

Actually I was well aware of this and it's rareity found some
interesting new literature.

It's been known for over 1000 years. The term was coined in 1840. It was
a rareity because people stopped using silver when modern antibiotics were
discovered. It's making a comeback among the credulous.

Modern antibiotics have their own and serious side effects including
antibiotic
resistant strains of bacteria.

Basicly one should not treat themself
unless that have done a lot of research on the subject.

You, for instance?

If I learn of serious side effects, I'll moderate any treatments in
accordence. So
far I have avoided unsafe so-called colloidal silver treatments. Where are
in the
marketplace.

I only use it to treat an active infection.

And your expertise in infectious disease comes from what?

It does not take a medical degree to know when you have an infection.
If I have questions of a medical nature my mother was a career RN and
my brother-in-law is an orthopedic surgeon.


Some solutions are not true colloidal solutions some pose more danger
than others, some have no silver content at all.



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

Doesn't it bother you that so much of what you think you know isn't
true? Argyria causes the skin to turn grey, not blue, and what would
that have to do with blood anyway?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria
Argyria (ISV from Greek: ??????? argyros silver + -ia) is a condition
caused by the ingestion of elemental silver, silver dust or silver
compounds.
The most dramatic symptom of argyria is that the skin becomes blue or
bluish-grey colored. Argyria may be found as generalized argyria or
local argyria. Argyrosis is the corresponding condition related to the
eye. The condition is believed to be permanent, but laser therapy may
be helpful.

The phrase "blue blood" somes from the Spanish "sangre azul," used by
those light-skinned Spaniards proud of their white skin, which showed
that they had no Moorish blood in them. The blue veins near the
skin's surface are more prominent in people with pale skin.

I'll chalk that up to an urban legend then.

I have read no reports of causing cancer or other serious health
effects.

Then you haven't looked very hard.

I'm sure I can find anything I look hard enough for.

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/111/case_reports/argyria/wadhera.html
Furst and Schlauder studied the carcinogenic potential of silver and
gold; they concluded that finely divided silver powder injected
intramuscularly did not induce any form of cancer

I know, I know! I didn't look hard enough.

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.

I'm glad to hear it. Quit while you're still healthy. Silver is a
toxic heavy metal that has no function in the human body. Once in,
it tends to linger, binding to and disabling various enzymes.

Do you want your epitaph to be "I saved $70 on anti-biotics"?

I do take heed to the Bible when it warns agianst Sorcery.

Take heed that there's no such thing as sorcery.

Which the Greek translation is "Pharmicia" <sp?>

Pharmakeus is Greek for sorcerer. Pharmakis would be a sorceress. Both
are derived from the Greek word pharmakon, which did double duty for a
medicine or a potion.

I believe it's safe to say I'm better read on the subject than you.

Not if you're ingesting silver, you're not.

And I take responcibility for my own body. Since it is my body.

I don't propose forcing you to quit. I'm just advising you of the dangers
that you seem to have missed while getting better read on the subject than
me.

Robert


.