Honest Money Constitutional Amendment

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ron Paul: Federal Reserve is Like Drug Addiction

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/16/ron-paul-federal-reserve-is-like-drug-addiction

"Paul also favors allowing private entities to issue gold and silver coins and wants to prevent federal and state governments from taxing those precious metals."

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The REAL reason we invaded Libya.

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/m...-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

"Libya: Gadhafi planned to switch to gold in place of the US dollar for oil purchases. This would have further devastated the dollar and might have caused it to be dumped as the world's reserve currency. [Surely, this had nothing to do with the fact that the US backed Libya's rebellion and demanded 'regime change'. Right?] New American Posted 2011 Nov 12"

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Freedom Watch: On Money: Ron Paul, And The Federal Reserve




Paul is right! Kucinich'e idea is a disaster!

 

[Steven Douglas]

The difference between Paul and Kucinich, and their reasons for wanting to abolish the Fed, underscores what has been the ugly truth about the Fed system since its inception. The Fed is now propped up by support from two sides:

1) Government can deficit spend (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) without bothering to raise taxes.
(this equates to bipartisan appeal for different reasons, making an A-Frame of two flanked support for the Fed)
2) Banks can practice fractional reserve lending (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) to lend to the credit-worthy.
(fractional reserve lending appeals to bankers, and also downstream to businesses, which have readily available capital to combine and leverage with their own at the expense of the currency)

The Fed facilitates both sides, both of which are inflationary.

Deficit spending proponents in government exist in great numbers on both the far left and the far right, since both the war machine and the welfare machine that would otherwise be funded from tax revenues can be expanded at will without reprisal from tax payers by simply funding it through inflationary borrowing - a hidden tax on the currency itself.

Kucinich does not want to "end" the Fed. He wants to Federalize it, and place it directly under the Treasury Department. Why? Because Kucinich very much LIKES the idea of government deficit spending! He HATES the idea that money is being "borrowed" out thin air, rather than directly printed out of thin air directly by the government, with no intermediary. Kucinich also HATES the idea of commerce competing in the inflationary process, as the currency supply is even further debased and diluted through fractional reserve lending.

The far left and far right BOTH generally support the idea of inflationary practices for their own reasons. Their only real disagreement, primarily, is on who should be entitled to debauch the currency, and for what reasons - as one sibling wants to slap the other sibling off the teet that neither should have suckled in the first place (given that they are not infants, but vampires, and it is not a pair of teets, but bite marks over the jugular of the American economy)

 

[Travlyr]

The difference between Paul and Kucinich, and their reasons for wanting to abolish the Fed, underscores what has been the ugly truth about the Fed system since its inception. The Fed is now propped up by support from two sides:

1) Government can deficit spend (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) without bothering to raise taxes.
(this equates to bipartisan appeal for different reasons, making an A-Frame of two flanked support for the Fed)
2) Banks can practice fractional reserve lending (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) to lend to the credit-worthy.
(fractional reserve lending appeals to bankers, and also downstream to businesses, which have readily available capital to combine and leverage with their own at the expense of the currency)

The Fed facilitates both sides, both of which are inflationary.

Deficit spending proponents in government exist in great numbers on both the far left and the far right, since both the war machine and the welfare machine that would otherwise be funded from tax revenues can be expanded at will without reprisal from tax payers by simply funding it through inflationary borrowing - a hidden tax on the currency itself.

Kucinich does not want to "end" the Fed. He wants to Federalize it, and place it directly under the Treasury Department. Why? Because Kucinich very much LIKES the idea of government deficit spending! He HATES the idea that money is being "borrowed" out thin air, rather than directly printed out of thin air directly by the government, with no intermediary. Kucinich also HATES the idea of commerce competing in the inflationary process, as the currency supply is even further debased and diluted through fractional reserve lending.

The far left and far right BOTH generally support the idea of inflationary practices for their own reasons. Their only real disagreement, primarily, is on who should be entitled to debauch the currency, and for what reasons - as one sibling wants to slap the other sibling off the teet that neither should have suckled in the first place (given that they are not infants, but vampires, and it is not a pair of teets, but bite marks over the jugular of the American economy)

Absolutely. This is exactly why I want to be in control of our money supply. If you let me have it, I will treat you guys fairly... I promise.

 

[Travlyr]

Cross my fingers and hope to die... promise fellows. Just give me the power! You'll see. I'll be "fair". I promise.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The difference between Paul and Kucinich, and their reasons for wanting to abolish the Fed, underscores what has been the ugly truth about the Fed system since its inception. The Fed is now propped up by support from two sides:

1) Government can deficit spend (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) without bothering to raise taxes.
(this equates to bipartisan appeal for different reasons, making an A-Frame of two flanked support for the Fed)
2) Banks can practice fractional reserve lending (siphon value directly from the currency by direct inflationary dilution) to lend to the credit-worthy.
(fractional reserve lending appeals to bankers, and also downstream to businesses, which have readily available capital to combine and leverage with their own at the expense of the currency)

The Fed facilitates both sides, both of which are inflationary.

Deficit spending proponents in government exist in great numbers on both the far left and the far right, since both the war machine and the welfare machine that would otherwise be funded from tax revenues can be expanded at will without reprisal from tax payers by simply funding it through inflationary borrowing - a hidden tax on the currency itself.

Kucinich does not want to "end" the Fed. He wants to Federalize it, and place it directly under the Treasury Department. Why? Because Kucinich very much LIKES the idea of government deficit spending! He HATES the idea that money is being "borrowed" out thin air, rather than directly printed out of thin air directly by the government, with no intermediary. Kucinich also HATES the idea of commerce competing in the inflationary process, as the currency supply is even further debased and diluted through fractional reserve lending.

The far left and far right BOTH generally support the idea of inflationary practices for their own reasons. Their only real disagreement, primarily, is on who should be entitled to debauch the currency, and for what reasons - as one sibling wants to slap the other sibling off the teet that neither should have suckled in the first place (given that they are not infants, but vampires, and it is not a pair of teets, but bite marks over the jugular of the American economy)

Steven, you are brilliant! And instead of calling this thing "inflationary dilution" (which is correct by the way), I would call it LEGALIZED PLUNDER via legalized and monopolized counterfeiting.

If people are free to transact in any currency they please, (as under this amendment), fiat (unbacked "money") will die, and a 100% commodity based currency will overwhelmingly prevail, because it is the most honest and the most stable monetary system known to man, and needs no government coercion to operate, -- it is the monetary system of a truly free people!

 

[Steven Douglas]

Steven, you are brilliant! And instead of calling this thing "inflationary dilution" (which is correct by the way), I would call it LEGALIZED PLUNDER via legalized and monopolized counterfeiting.

I think it is VERY important to refer to it in terms of a mechanism that is both accurate and self-explanatory. It's why I hate the term "printing out thin air!", because there is no indication of the coupling force that automatically occurs - which leaves room for a logical disconnect, and even the question, "So? So they're counterfeiting, so what? At least I got mine, they can't touch that!"

Likewise, "inflation" alone is conflated to mean "rising prices", wherease "inflationary dilution", or "inflationary dilution of the money supply" leaves no ambiguity for waffling on what exactly is meant thereby - that you are, in fact, referring to a specific forcing, without regard to the effects.

Likewise, LEGALIZED PLUNDER is completely accurate, I agree, but it does not describe the mechanism by which such plunder actually takes place. So it can dismissed as an ad hominem attack, and, worse yet, everyone is left to fill in the blanks (with 99%+ inaccuracy) as to why or exactly how that might be true.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Thanks Steven! You are right, "inflationary dilution" emphasizes the fact that the purchasing power is being STOLEN from everyone who is holding "dollars", and transferred to the one who used newly counterfeited money first.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Thanks Steven! You are right, "inflationary dilution" emphasizes the fact that the purchasing power is being STOLEN from everyone who is holding "dollars", and transferred to the one who used newly counterfeited money first.

Yeah, it's just a bartender watering down drinks, a drug dealer that cuts their drugs with worthless powder.

I am looking for all the other ways to say it, using the same criteria. When you say "inflationary dilution" it leaves no argument open for dispute - or at the very least, one you will win every time, given that is precisely and irrefutably what happens. Intelligent, but otherwise Keynesian/pro-fiat money/mainstream economists and others will not dispute this. Their entire M.O. and the reason they prefer the more nebulous "effects-based" definitions, is to get past that "little technicality" as quickly as possible, so that we can then become mired into meaningless discussions about all the complexities that occur after the fact, including all the wonderful reasons why such dilutions are somehow good or necessary for "the economy".

Remember the movie Cocoon? The swimming pool was infused with potent life-giving energy from the alien cocoons. A few old men swimming in the water weakened the water a bit, but not too much. It didn't matter all that much, so those few were given permission. Then word got out that the pool was indeed a source of rejuvenation, and everyone jumped into the water -- until the cocoons were sapped of all their energy, and some of the cocoons died.

The cocoons were our original wealth until they were thrown into a collective "wealth pool" of America, one that was interconnected but never collectivized to begin with. It was an enormous, but not infinite, source of wealth. The government created the Fed, which in turn gave permission to both government and the banks and commercial interests to jump into the Cocoon filled wealth pool of America at will...and every time they did, they weakened it - sucked vital energy from it. With a seemingly boundless, endless, "free" source of wealth, the only problem is how to get those who contribute to the cocoons to rejuvenate the water faster, because Libya and many others, it turns out, have since been given permission to jump into the pool, and there's always a possibility we're going to have let the EU jump in as well - because they're not doing so well either, doncha know.

 

[Travlyr]

Thanks Steven! You are right, "inflationary dilution" emphasizes the fact that the purchasing power is being STOLEN from everyone who is holding "dollars", and transferred to the one who used newly counterfeited money first.

I am surprised that more people are not really pissed off at their banker. He is a thief. The entire industry is nothing but a theft ring. People would be mad as hell if someone stole their computer, their car, or broke into their home every night and stole food & wine out of the cellar, but let a banker dress up in a nice Armani suit, sit down at church with them, face them across the desk while begging for loan, and the thief seems like a really nice guy. It is amazing.

Not one man in a million can detect it, and nearly that same proportion of people will not believe it when it is pointed out. Yet, the thieves tell everybody what they are doing, but since they seem like such nice guys... clean shaven and all... they show up to work on time... they are really rich so they must be hard working fellows... and people allow the really nice banker to pick their pocket every day with a smile.

"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." - George H.W. Bush to White House reporter Sarah McClendon, 1992

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

As each day passes ... everybody but the insiders are getting poorer and poorer. It is amazing. When will it end?

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Yeah, in a word, fiat, unbacked monetary system is the single greatest instrument of plunder ever conceived by the mind of man, and Free Competition in currencies kills that monster faster than you can say "I don't want your worthless paper!" Hence the need for this amendment, or at least the need for the principles spelled out in it to be put into practice. Freedom IS the solution.

 

[Travlyr]

Yeah, in a word, fiat, unbacked monetary system is the single greatest instrument of plunder ever conceived by the mind of man, and Free Competition in currencies kills that monster faster than you can say "I don't want your worthless paper!" Hence the need for this amendment, or at least the need for the principles spelled out in it to be put into practice. Freedom IS the solution.

Stopping the plunder this afternoon or tomorrow wouldn't be too soon for me.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Amen.

 

[Steven Douglas]

As each day passes ... everybody but the insiders are getting poorer and poorer. It is amazing. When will it end?

It might never end. That's the sad reality, because it is founded on Majority Addiction and Majority Ignorance, and greases too many hands in the process. That makes it prone to thrive under any political regime - especially a democracy - a tyranny of the very majority it enslaves. But since it "seems" to gain in the short term (amphetamines really do unleash more energy, that is not an illusion), it gets passes off for another day, down the road - partly from fairy tale ignorance, partly from greed, but mostly from pain avoidance. Hell, even a stone-cold, hardcore addicted junkie doesn't die right away. How do we know he doesn't owe his very life to the drugs he is taking? He would rather continue with the addiction than face the very real pain of withdrawals. That is the yang that comes with that yin, the very natural piper forces that comes calling, demanding to be paid.

Only here we are not talking about a single junkie, or even a generation of junkies. Humans are a renewable resource. The old junkies die, the new junkies have both youth and a "useful lifespan", regardless of how long it might last. And if they have babies at younger ages, that just keeps the productivity well alive. Damaged, yes, but alive nonetheless.

That a flagrantly criminal Ponzi scheme of this magnitude has lasted a hundred years is a testament to its longevity and the efficacy of its deception. If we do enter into a new phase with a Super Euro-Dollar (which China may be wise enough to have NOTHING to do with), it would not surprise me if its methods were honed such that it lasted, conceivably, for a thousand years. Why? Because those who are enslaved by such a system really will always continue to produce. They must as a matter of survival. It is that need, that drive to survive which is leveraged and tapped into most of all. The need to survive is the driving fuel, and theoretically, you really can shear sheep indefinitely - so long as you are careful not to cut too deeply. But you still want more wool. The response to that little limitation - more sheep.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Fiat unbacked money is socialism (i.e. plunder). Plain and simple. It is collectivism. Such a society must unavoidably self-destruct, because it eviscerates all productive forces of the society. The only sure foundation to build upon are the true principles of liberty (which demand this amendment).

 

[Travlyr]

I wish people could see how prosperous they would be if they stopped the thieves from plundering. Flying cars would be the order of the day. Many of our clothes, products, and fuel would be made from renewable resources. A free world would be happy healthy world. People could comfortably enjoy the world in peace instead of working until they die.

It may be tough for me to ever see it in reality, but I can continue to spread the message of truth with the hope that my children and grandchildren may achieve some semblance of liberty, peace, and prosperity some day.

"Let It Not Be Said That We Did Nothing" -- Ron Paul

 

[Steven Douglas]

Fiat unbacked money is socialism. Plain and simple. It is collectivism. Such a society must unavoidably self-destruct, because it eviscerates all productive forces of the society. The only sure foundation to build upon are the true principles of liberty (which demand this amendment).

Let's clear that one up as well. It is collectivism, and of the most insidious kind, but it is NOT socialism. Socialism is a DREAM compared to what this is, because at the very least socialism just redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor - or so it intends. That is not what this system does (although it pretends to do that as well). This system SIPHONS wealth and redistributes it to the poor and the unproductive from the left, but MOSTLY to the hyper-rich on the right. Who is left out? COMPLETELY? The middle class.

What this system really does is DIVIDE the rich from the poor, and with an ever-widening gap. DELIBERATELY.

I used to hate the old mantra, "Yeah, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer", just about as much as I still HATE the mantra about "the wealthiest 1%" (and any other blithering way you want to put it) - because, once again, THESE MORONS are pointing to effects, not causal factors. Pointing at the effects leaves us batting against leaves and fruits, bickering and whining about things like "greed" and ulterior motives, while leaving the root "causes", which mechanisms take place without regard to motives, COMPLETELY UNEXAMINED.

There is no such thing as socialism - not here OR in China. China is neither communist nor is it socialist. Socialism is nothing more than a sentiment - a statement of intent. China is now nothing more than oligarchical control of a now capital driven economy with "socialist ideals". One fundamental difference is that it actually encourages and rewards savings!

And what the HELL ARE WE? Don't say democracy, or even Democratic Republic, as if that meant anything at all - that is a shell game of the highest order, and absolutely meaningless. And don't say land of the free and home of the brave either. We are, at the core, a BANKER'S economy, which has deliberately pit one ideological faction against the other, by facilitating "FREE MARKET" competition between corporatist AND socialist ideals - all of it collectivist, as they all slop from the same collective debt trough.

So you could say "follow the money", but to do that you must realize that the actual money trail is divided into two extremely compromised branches which now very much depend upon one another, and the system as devised, for survival.

Oh, and I don't look a commercial bankers as anything but branches of evil. NOT the roots. So I ignore them, and none of my anger is directed toward them, because it really is a needless distraction. They don't make the rules - they only profit from them. Otherwise, by extension, anybody who has ever had credit is culpable - they're the twigs and leaves hanging from those branches. That leaves only those who are not allowed to participate (the non-credit worthy) with clean hands - but the poorest of these flank the other side - the socialist side of the equation. If fractional reserve lending was criminalized, that branch which causes the greatest amount of inflation to the money supply would wither and die. Likewise, if there were no legal tender laws, and hard specie was not taxed, we would not all be force-channeled artificially into DEBT as the only means for economic activity. Savings would mean something, and privately accumulated capital would compete head-to-head, and ultimately STOMP debt-based capital into its natural proper place.

So I focus on the root cause only - not those who profit therefrom.


Ron Paul is unique because he is one of the very, VERY few who actually champions the middle class in all of this. The rest fall primarily on whichever side of the Ponzi scheme is most effectual for the advancement of their Macroeconomic Causes - without regard to the scores of millions of casualties in the middle.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Has anybody here seen the Saw series of movies? I hate the movies myself, but watched two of them, just as I hate all so-called "no win" thought experiments - like the popular "Would you rather..." thought games - which are somehow fun as well as revealing (NOT).

The Saw series forces people into unnatural situations, which in turn forces them to make macabre choices - which are supposedly tests of their humanity and character.

Jigsaw, the demented psychotic genius/bastard responsible for the machines and bizarre machinations, is dismissed up front as "Yeah, well, we know he's bad - but anyway, what about these other people, and all the juicy stuff that Jigsaw set into motion? Isn't that heart-pounding stuff?!"

I stop the tape/film right there. What do I care how these people respond to any of this? The only real evil in the film is Jigsaw himself. The rest are just flawed humans that Jigsaw has judged and wants to "teach" lessons to ("I want to play a game."). And he's just a psychotic killer who is going to die anyway, whose identity is camouflaged such that he's immune. So let's just get past that and focus on the story at hand, shall we? After all, the people involved are the "real story".

No they aren't. They shouldn't be in that position in the first place, and I don't have a single judgment for any of them. Their cowardice or heroics are meaningless to me. So what's the point of the film, when I already know the solution, and the bigger moral to the story without even watching it?

The Fed is Jigsaw. Legal tender laws, fractional reserve lending and deficit spending are the unnatural causes which bring about two competing forces for the survival of the only two classes which matter - "the rich" and "the poor" - as if that described the current whole, rather than the end game.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I wish people could see how prosperous they would be if they stopped the thieves from plundering. Flying cars would be the order of the day. Many of our clothes, products, and fuel would be made from renewable resources. A free world would be happy healthy world. People could comfortably enjoy the world in peace instead of working until they die.

It may be tough for me to ever see it in reality, but I can continue to spread the message of truth with the hope that my children and grandchildren may achieve some semblance of liberty, peace, and prosperity some day.

"Let It Not Be Said That We Did Nothing" -- Ron Paul

You are so right!