Honest Money Constitutional Amendment

Should the people be free to transact unimpeded in any currency they choose?


  • Total voters
    68
I don't have the time or patience to dig through his videos (he takes so darn long to get to the point he tries to make) but this is a summary of his 2008 video:
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/bob-chapman-lindsey-williams-whats-to-come/
Basically, Mr. Williams was told that over the next twelve months, from mid-2008 to mid-2009,
(1) news of super giant oil fields, ready to produce, would be announced for two locations, in the Northern Slopes of Russia and in Indonesia, which oil fields would together contain more oil reserves than the entire Middle East;
(2) that this news would drive oil prices down to $50/barrel;
(3) that OPEC countries, especially in the Middle East, would be bankrupted by this price decrease;
(4) that this would cause the financing of our foreign trade and current account deficits through purchases of treasury paper by foreign nations with their surplus oil profits to collapse, leading to the collapse of the dollar;
(5) that the collapse of the dollar would cause unprecedented financial strife and turmoil in the US, and that it would take many years for the US to recover from this financial debacle;
(6) that they (big oil) support John McCain for President; and
(7) that US domestic oil reserves would never be tapped, and that any legislation which might allow domestic reserves to be tapped would not be allowed to pass, leaving the US dependent on foreign oil forever.

1)There were no new major oil fields in Russia or Indonesia (let alone enough to be more than the total reserves of Saudi Arabia).
2) Yes, the price of oil did briefly go to $50 a barrel (the fall was due to the collapse in global demand for oil due to the economic crisis) but
3) it did not bankrupt the Middle East.
4) the dollar did not collapse and the current account deficit shrank- not grew http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2010/pdf/trans_annual09_fax.pdf
5) There was not "unprecidented financial strife and turmoil" (the worse of the financial crisis had alread happened- it did not get worse in 2008- 2009)
6) John McCain was not made president. ("John McCain is their man. They will do whatever it takes to make sure he gets elected" is what he said.
7) Oil leases were not banned but instead more leases were sold. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2012/january/NR_1_10_2012.html

I don't see "95% correct predictions".
 
Last edited:
I don't have the time or patience to dig through his videos (he takes so darn long to get to the point he tries to make) but this is a summary of his 2008 video:
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/bob-chapman-lindsey-williams-whats-to-come/


1)There were no new major oil fields in Russia or Indonesia (let alone enough to be more than the total reserves of Saudi Arabia).
2) Yes, the price of oil did briefly go to $50 a barrel (the fall was due to the collapse in global demand for oil due to the economic crisis) but
3) it did not bankrupt the Middle East.
4) the dollar did not collapse and the current account deficit shrank- not grew http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2010/pdf/trans_annual09_fax.pdf
5) There was not "unprecidented financial strife and turmoil" (the worse of the financial crisis had alread happened- it did not get worse in 2008- 2009)
6) John McCain was not made president. ("John McCain is their man. They will do whatever it takes to make sure he gets elected" is what he said.
7) Oil leases were not banned but instead more leases were sold. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2012/january/NR_1_10_2012.html

I don't see "95% correct predictions".
The timing of the dollar demise was not consigned to 2009. It will happen (visibly for every one) in Dec 2012, when dollar sharply will lose much of its purchasing power (it will probably be blamed on some staged event, instead of the fact that they printed ~$17 trillion just before), resulting in a full blown hyperinflation by the summer of 2013.

So, his information was mostly correct.
 
What is going to happen in the next two months (December 2012 is six weeks away) to destroy the dollar? (not sure where the $17 trillion figure comes from either- the Fed has not "printed" $17 trillion.)

And he is still wrong on six of seven predictions for 2008- 2009.
 
Last edited:
What is going to happen in the next two months (December 2012 is six weeks away) to destroy the dollar? (not sure where the $17 trillion figure comes from either- the Fed has not "printed" $17 trillion.)

And he is still wrong on six of seven predictions for 2008- 2009.
Wrong again:


In addition the prediction of price swing from $150 to $50 per barrel was correct. I think Lindsay Williams proved his point: the world economy is being manipulated.

Lindsay Williams : The Timeline
 
1) The $16 trillion figure includes massive double counting. Banks had to give the Fed collateral to take out loans (which were paid back) so it wasn't exactly "printing" since they were in exchange for a comparable value in assets and the terms of the loans were overnight. If they kept it out for more than one day, it was counted as a new loan- thus a $10 billion loan kept out for 30 days was counted as $300 billion in loans- even though they did not acutally have more than $10 billion out. Discounting that and the loan total drops to $1.2 trillion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/have-y...l-reserve-handed-to-the-too-big-to-fail-banks

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts. Let’s take a look at them and see what they mean.


$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement….


The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 — the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg — was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans. On December 5, 2008 the “too big to fail” banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve. Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time. Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.


2) Russian East Serbian Oil find- the find has an estimated 1.1 billion barrels according to the link. Williams said that the Indonesian and Russian finds would be bigger than all of the Saudi Reserves which are about 250 billion barrels. For comparison, the US consumes 7 billion barrels a year. Haven't found numbers for the Indonesian discovery but it is expected to yield 3,500 barrels a day (a small yield). The Deepwater Horizon well which exploded would have been four billion barrels total (three times the Russian find) and was LEAKING over 50,000 barrels a day- more than ten times the Indonesian find at its expected peak production. Those were not significant discoveries announced.
 
Last edited:
[SIZE=+4]World's Biggest Oil Reserves
In S Dakota, E Montana[/SIZE]


U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

Read more: http://rense.com/general86/world.htm
 
Was this a Lindsay Williams prediction? The Bakkans is nothing new- it has been undergoing boom and bust development as oil prices change since the 1960's and was first discovered in the 1950's.

The problem with the Bakken oil reserves is that much of the oil is tied up in rocks. The estimates of the oil which is recoverable given current technology and oil prices range from 3 billion to 24 billion barrels (again, note Saudi Arabia with about 250 billion recoverable and our consumption of about 7 billion barrels a year). The rest is litterally rocks with oil within them and to get that out you have to extract the rocks, crush them, heat them to high temperature and use lots of water and chemicals to separate the oil from the rocks. That requires about the equivelent of one barrel of oil to extract two barrels of oil. Water is also a limited supply item in the area. Fracking has been getting some of the "looser" oil in the area out but that is nowhere near Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
The Bakken formation /ˈbɑːkən/ is a rock unit from the Late Devonian to Early Mississippian age occupying about 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2) of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, underlying parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan. The formation was initially described by geologist J.W. Nordquist in 1953.[2] The formation is entirely in the subsurface, and has no surface outcrop. It is named after Henry Bakken, a farmer in Williston, North Dakota who owned the land where the formation was initially discovered.[3]

Besides being a widespread prolific source rock for oil when thermally mature, there are also significant producible reserves of oil within the Bakken formation itself.[4] Oil was first discovered within the Bakken in 1951, but efforts to produce it have reached difficulties historically. An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil using technology readily available at the end of 2007 within the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), with a mean of 3.65 billion.[5] The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels (330,000,000 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken.[6] Various other estimates place the total reserves, recoverable and non-recoverable with today's technology, at up to 24 billion barrels. The most recent estimate places the figure at 18 billion barrels
 
Was this a Lindsay Williams prediction? The Bakkans is nothing new- it has been undergoing boom and bust development as oil prices change since the 1960's and was first discovered in the 1950's.

The problem with the Bakken oil reserves is that much of the oil is tied up in rocks. The estimates of the oil which is recoverable given current technology and oil prices range from 3 billion to 24 billion barrels (again, note Saudi Arabia with about 250 billion recoverable and our consumption of about 7 billion barrels a year). The rest is litterally rocks with oil within them and to get that out you have to extract the rocks, crush them, heat them to high temperature and use lots of water and chemicals to separate the oil from the rocks. That requires about the equivelent of one barrel of oil to extract two barrels of oil. Water is also a limited supply item in the area. Fracking has been getting some of the "looser" oil in the area out but that is nowhere near Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
That contradicts the article which says
However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.

Also, Williams was told that Prudhoe Bay Oil Field was the largest known in the world, but after it was suppressed, they now lie about its size. Nothing new here.

Also you forgot the 2 TRILLION barrel oil field under the Rocky Mountains.

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

The bottom line US always had MORE THAN ENOUGH of its OWN oil. This has been known for decades or more. The ONLY reason we were made dependent on foreign oil was a CONSPIRACY to rob Americans and to create enemies for them, so that they might be eventually enslaved. Look up Hegelian Dialectic, or Problem-Reaction-Solution. This is the standard operating procedure for Luciferians who rule the elite.
 
The bottom line US always had MORE THAN ENOUGH of its OWN oil. This has been known for decades or more. The ONLY reason we were made dependent on foreign oil was a CONSPIRACY to rob Americans and to create enemies for them, so that they might be eventually enslaved. Look up Hegelian Dialectic, or Problem-Reaction-Solution. This is the standard operating procedure for Luciferians who rule the elite.



1:34 "If you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw (there it is, that's a straw, you see...watch it)...my straw reaches across the room, and starts to drink your milkshake. I...drink...your...MILKSHAKE!"
 
Also, Williams was told that Prudhoe Bay Oil Field was the largest known in the world, but after it was suppressed, they now lie about its size. Nothing new here.

Any supporting evidence beyond William's claim? Actually he said Gull Island which is within Prudhoe Bay had as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Gull Island is less than one mile in size. The largest oil field in Saudi Arabia is hundreds of miles long. Here is a picture of the island:
gull-island-alaska-91799-ga.jpg


http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/gull-island-alaska.html

Prudhoe Bay oil production has been declining since the 1970's and now the amounts being produced are so low they are concerned that there is enough passing through the Alaskan pipeline (which brings that oil down to the lower 48) to be able to keep the pipeline flowing.

He also claimed that the North Slope of Alaska had as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Also you forgot the 2 TRILLION barrel oil field under the Rocky Mountains.

It is there- but incredibly difficult and expensive to get at, as I pointed out earlier. This is oil shale with the oil tied up in solid rocks. Think tar sands of Canada only hardened. This is not stuff you can simply drill down to and pump it out.
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/

Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. This energy bounty is simply too large to ignore any longer, assuming that the reserves are economically viable. And yet, oil shale lies far from the radar screen of most investors.

Extracting oil from the shale is no simple task. The earliest attempts to extract the oil utilized an environmentally unfriendly process known as “retorting.” Stated simply, retorting required mining the shale, hauling it to a processing facility that crushed the rock into small chunks, then extracted a petroleum substance called kerogen, then upgraded the kerogen through a process of hydrogenation (which requires lots of water) and refined it into gasoline or jet fuel.

But the difficulties of retorting do not end there, as my colleague, Byron King explains:

“After you retort the rock to derive the kerogen (not oil), the heating process has desiccated the shale (OK, that means that it is dried out). Sad to say, the volume of desiccated shale that you have to dispose of is now greater than that of the hole from which you dug and mined it in the first place. Any takers for trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically-activated crap? (Well, it makes for enough crap that when it rains, the toxic stuff will leach out and contaminate all of the water supplies to which gravity can reach, which is essentially all of ‘em. Yeah, right. I sure want that stuff blowin’ in my wind.) Add up all of the capital investment to build the retorting mechanisms, cost of energy required, cost of water, costs of transport, costs of environmental compliance, costs of refining, and you have some relatively costly end-product.”

Plus it will require millions of gallons of water which is a scarce resource in the arid West.
 
Last edited:
Zippyjuan said:
Actually he said Gull Island which is within Prudhoe Bay had as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Gull Island is less than one mile in size. The largest oil field in Saudi Arabia is hundreds of miles long. Here is a picture of the island:
The size of the island is irrelevant. Don't you know you can drill in the sea, with no island at all?

Zippyjuan said:
It is there- but incredibly difficult and expensive to get at, as I pointed out earlier. This is oil shale with the oil tied up in solid rocks. Think tar sands of Canada only hardened. This is not stuff you can simply drill down to and pump it out.
After all the lies we have been told, I would not be surprised if Exxon failed on purpose by choosing a rocky spot to begin with.

I believe Williams. The evidence is in his favor.
 
Being Anti-Fed Isn't Enough
You have to understand money. Article by Tom Woods:

As I noted not long ago, I find myself in serious disagreement with a portion of the end-the-Fed movement. This is the segment of the movement whose complaints are that the Federal Reserve is “privately owned,” that the Fed does not inflate enough, that interest payments are unjust or inherently unpayable all at once, etc.

This is not nit-picking. I am not interested in replacing the Fed with something as bad or worse. The problem with the Fed is not that it isn’t socialistic enough. The problem with the Fed is that it is a creation of Congress and operates with special privileges granted by the government. If only the Fed were truly private, with no government-granted privileges. Then it could do no damage whatever.

Right on, Tom! Remove government forced monopoly, (i.e. allow Free Competition in Currencies), and unbacked fiat ends by the hand of Free Market, together with welfare state and warfare state! That is the purpose of this amendment!
 
Last edited:
The size of the island is irrelevant. Don't you know you can drill in the sea, with no island at all?

After all the lies we have been told, I would not be surprised if Exxon failed on purpose by choosing a rocky spot to begin with.

I believe Williams. The evidence is in his favor.

Sure you can drill in the ocean. Happens all of the time. The problem is one of space. You can't physically hide 250 billion barrels of oil in an area that small. It is WITHIN Prudhoe Bay which itself had an estimated 13 billion barrels of recoverable oil. http://www.alaskapipelinejobinfo.com/prudhoebayoilfield.html
When first discovered, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield was thought to contain 9.6 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Advances in technology have upped that estimate to 13 billion barrels. The field also contains a significant amount of natural gas with the latest estimate at more than 26 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. To access these resources, more than 1,114 wells have been drilled (as of the summer of 2006). The field itself is 213,543 acres in size.

Development of the field began in 1969 and oil first made its way down the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) on June 20th 1977.

When it came online, Prudhoe Bay averaged over 1.5 million barrels of oil & gas liquids per day for more than a decade. Output started to decline in 1988 and as of 2005, the average daily production is approximately 450,000 barrels. This amount equals 5% of total U.S. production.

BP is one of the companies with rights to Prudhoe Bay. If the Bay had that much oil, why would they spend over half a billion dollars to drill seven miles down in the Gulf of Mexico for the Deepwater Horizon rig? Why not keep pumping in Alaska if it has that much oil in a place they already have rigs? No- it doesn't add up.

Perhaps you can share evidence of his being right about 250 billion barrels of oil at Gull Island or the North Slope of Alaska. And McCain being president. And the massive oil fields announced in Northern Russia. And Indonesia- both totaling over 250 billion barrels extractable oil combined for 2008/ 2009. (Indonesia is a net oil importer- they could use the revenues!) And the Middle East being bankrupt. He throws a lot of stuff out there and gets lucky once in a while. He is no expert.
 
Sure you can drill in the ocean. Happens all of the time. The problem is one of space. You can't physically hide 250 billion barrels of oil in an area that small. It is WITHIN Prudhoe Bay which itself had an estimated 13 billion barrels of recoverable oil. http://www.alaskapipelinejobinfo.com/prudhoebayoilfield.html
The ocean floor is 2/3 of the earth's surface. It is NOT a small area. If you have an exit point in Prudhoe Bay, it does not mean that the underground field must be limited to the size of the island or the bay. As I said before, you don't even have to have an island, nor a bay for that matter.

BP is one of the companies with rights to Prudhoe Bay. If the Bay had that much oil, why would they spend over half a billion dollars to drill seven miles down in the Gulf of Mexico for the Deepwater Horizon rig? Why not keep pumping in Alaska if it has that much oil in a place they already have rigs? No- it doesn't add up.
It is called CONSPIRACY. You might have heard of the word. Look it up. It has been the moving engine of a wicked world for a few thousand years.

Perhaps you can share evidence of his being right about 250 billion barrels of oil at Gull Island or the North Slope of Alaska. And McCain being president. And the massive oil fields announced in Northern Russia. And Indonesia- both totaling over 250 billion barrels extractable oil combined for 2008/ 2009. (Indonesia is a net oil importer- they could use the revenues!) And the Middle East being bankrupt. He throws a lot of stuff out there and gets lucky once in a while. He is no expert.
Northern Russia has massive estimates. The announcements might have been canceled after the disclosure. However the precise price swing from $150 to $50 per barrel was spot on. Was that a coincident too? "Coincident" is the excuse of fools and liars. There is no such thing.

Middle East is in the process of going bankrupt. He is no expert, neither does he claim to be one. He simply repeats what he was told.
 
The ocean floor is 2/3 of the earth's surface. It is NOT a small area. If you have an exit point in Prudhoe Bay, it does not mean that the underground field must be limited to the size of the island or the bay. As I said before, you don't even have to have an island, nor a bay for that matter.
Let me try again. Ocean big. Prudhoe Bay not big. Gull Island inside Prudhoe Bay. Very small. Prudhoe Bay has 13 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Saudi Arabia has 250 billion barrels of oil and their biggest field is over 200 miles long. It is impossible for this place inside Prudhoe Bay to have more oil than a 200 mile long reserve. 250 billion barrels hiding in Bay with only 13 billion barrels? Not possible.
Google Map: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...a=X&ei=w4WAUKvWH4OnigKChoD4BA&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA (the little "7" shape in the middle of the bay is Gull Island).

The evidence is in his favor.

Let's see the evidence.

He is no expert, neither does he claim to be one. He simply repeats what he was told.

"Buy my DVD and find out all about it!" (or his book- he said "they would do to me what they did to JFK" if he kept trying to sell his book.) He also said "they" forced him to shut down his website. He is still selling.
 
Last edited:
'Fool's Gold' Standards

IMF is planning to produce "gold backed" SDR's as a new global currency. It is a fraud in the making. Just like the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 called for gold backing of the dollar, only to quietly remove and outlaw such backing later, so is the plan of the banksters regarding SDR's. It may initially be backed by "gold" to sucker people in, but because of the monopoly, it will soon become NOT redeemable in gold, to perpetuate the fiat fraud on global scale. The true solution is to kill the immoral monopoly by legalizing Free Competition in Currencies, as demanded by Free Market, which is the purpose of this amendment (please see the top post).

Ron Paul, in "Why Monetary Freedom Matters," reinforces Salerno's caution on true reform, a market determined money, versus reforms, that while perhaps better than a "false trust in fiat money" will leave too many opportunities for monetary mischief. Paul states, "As far back as the Gold Commission (1982), I've made the case for gold." But he wouldn't close down the central bank: he would legalize competition in currencies, repeal legal-tender laws, and eliminate all taxes on silver or gold purchases, and allow private mints. In essence, his proposal is similar to what F. A. Hayek (1976, 1978) had talked about. Why don't we denationalize money, legalize competition, allow free markets to work, and allow free-market banking to work?

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/cochran-j1.1.1.html
 
Last edited:
'Fool's Gold' Standards

IMF is planning to produce "gold backed" SDR's as a new global currency. It is a fraud in the making. Just like the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 called for gold backing of the dollar, only to quietly remove and outlaw such backing later, so is the plan of the banksters regarding SDR's. It may initially be backed by "gold" to sucker people in, but because of the monopoly, it will soon become NOT redeemable in gold...

I would be utterly shocked if it was EVER redeemable in gold, even from the onset. It will only be said to be "backed by gold" to instill CON-fidence, with nobody--not government or individuals--ever having the ability to say, "OK, here's my bill, where's my gold?"
 
Back
Top