Legal & Policy Challenges


The Constitution states, “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” This power has been abdicated to private bankers. Today, 99.99% of our money is created by private banks when they make loans. This includes the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, which orders Federal Reserve Notes to be printed, and then lends them to the U.S. government. Only coins are actually created by the government itself. Coins compose only about 1-10,000th of the M3 money supply, and Federal Reserve Notes compose about 3% of it. All of the rest is created by banks as loans, something they do by simply writing numbers into accounts.

Congress could take back the power to create the national money supply by:

(a) Nationalizing the Federal Reserve.

(b) Reviving the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a government-owned lending facility used by Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. Rather than merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, however, the RFC could actually create credit on its books, in the same way that banks do it today, by fanning its capital base into many times that sum in loans. Assuming $300 billion is left of the TARP money approved by Congress last fall, this money could be deposited into the RFC and leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. That’s based on a 10% reserve requirement. If the money were counted as capital, at an 8% capital requirement it could be leveraged into 12.5 times the original sum. That would be enough to fund not only President Obama’s stimulus package but many other programs that are desperately short of funding now.

Many references are available which will be furnished on request. See generally


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

668 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Upvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Downvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]


  1. Comment

    Because the economy is such a major concern for Americans today, and because President Obama has offered to keep transparency and the 'We' in this government, I would love to see economists invited to the White House to be part of the brainstorming. This woman, Ellen Brown, obviously has done alot of research and documentation behind her proposal. It is people like this - who are part of the 'We' - that President Obama has promised to listen to that I would like to see given a chance to interact and input into this administration.

  2. Comment
    Steve Walker

    The "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown is a must read. This boo explains in detail how our monetary system works and how it got that way. The Internation Banking Cartel controls the money supply, and therefore controls economies around the world, including ours. You will find The Federal Reserve is really a private entity.

    This is a root issue and will help all other issues.

  3. Comment

    Abe did it, ND does it, we should too. Rather than government paying interest, interest could become revenue. Rather than interest lining pockets of rich, it could be doing good for general public. Rather giving bail out money to banks so they can leverage up for profits or to cover bad moves or bury to stay solvent, the government could leverage up to do public works and provide credit cushion in tough economy and stay solvent. Private banks had a nice run, now it time for the good of whole nation instead

  4. Comment

    As citizens, we can't improve OUR financial situation by paying for our money twice plus interest. Once through taxes for the government to hand it out to the banks and again when they LOAN it back to us.

    It's time to reclaim the money making rights from the bankers. We need to reclaim them for Federal, State and local governments as well as ourselves.

    There is no free market nor free government while there is a monopolistic monetary system.

  5. Comment

    Ellen Brown has opened my eyes to the banking world. Ezra Pound said it: "Follow the money." When Ms Brown finished with me I was no longer worried about how we were going to recover from so many bursted bubbles. She pointed to me the way the hemp revolution in California could be financed, open the Bank of the California Republic, and use fractional banking. When you know the system the solution as Ellen puts it above seems necessary and constitutional.

  6. Comment

    No one knows or cares that North Dakota has a state bank. The big banks seem to control the media so like hemp, you don't hear about North Dakota. Now that Ellen Brown has mentioned it, California will have a state bank.

    We are the world's eight largest economy, how can we not. North Dakota gives 1% farm loans. California Legislature has already passed two hemp bills, that were vetoed. One percent farm loans and a state banking system and the hemp revolution would be underway. Read the Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown and visit the USA Hemp Museum at

  7. Comment

    Without the ability for a bank to create money, you wouldn't have a job because there wouldn't be enough money. It's called money velocity. Money velocity is the idea that the same PRINTED dollar gets spent over and over.

    What people are upset over, and I agree, is that the bankers made as much money as they felt like and it blew up the system. This is because the Fed removed the requirement for a reserve ratio, which requires a bank to have a certain amount of hard dollars for every dollar they create.

    A reserve ratio is what is needed to stabilize the system (among other things) and the Fed has already reinstituted this requirement.

  8. Comment

    I like the state bank idea a lot more than a national bank. Using farm loans as an example, the federal loans have been denied to Blacks as a routine.

    States would have much more trouble denying Blacks, as more people now listen to hip-hop than country, even in rural areas.

  9. Comment

    Ellen’s suggestion, “TAKE BACK THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE BANKING INDUSTRY”, is one supported by just about every American president (including after the fact the one who gave us the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson) and monetary reformers for 300 years. It is vital for reasons that go far beyond extricating us from the current economic mess. Last September Wall Street, through its dual-hated spokesman Henry Paulson, demonstrated that the power to create money not only provides the power to control governments – it provides the power to sabotage the economic welfare of the country in pursuit of its own interests.

    That is not a power that belongs in private hands. Until it is reclaimed, our politicians will be nothing more than puppets of the banks and Wall Street. If they don’t reclaim the power to govern by reclaiming the power to create money, they will stand revealed as hired agents of privately-created money.

  10. Comment

    Ellen’s suggestion, “TAKE BACK THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE BANKING INDUSTRY”, is one supported by just about every American president (including after the fact the one who gave us the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson) and monetary reformers for 300 years. It is vital for reasons that go far beyond extricating us from the current economic mess. Last September Wall Street, through its dual-hated spokesman Henry Paulson, demonstrated that the power to create money not only provides the power to control governments – it provides the power to sabotage the economic welfare of the country in pursuit of its own interests.

    That is not a power that belongs in private hands. Until it is reclaimed, our politicians will be nothing more than puppets of the banks and Wall Street. If they don’t reclaim the power to govern by reclaiming the power to create money, they will stand revealed as hired agents of privately-created money.

  11. Comment

    I urge support of EHB's proposal! Sooner or later the public is going to discover that governments have the sovereign right and responsibility to create money and control its distribution, value, and velocity. The right to create money flows from the constitutional rights of the individual to enter into contracts. I hope the discovery is sooner, as later surely means spreading economic chaos and disaster. A few quotes among hundreds on the topic:

    James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

    Frederic Bastiat: The Law "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

    John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose."

    My entire blog is devoted to this issue of Public Vs Privately Created Money: (copy & paste)

    Also see and

  12. Comment

    Take back the powers that were denied to the ordinarty people by the Constitution in actuality.Words are cheap.The only way to guarantee that you all are not ENSLAVED by private banks from cradle to grave, by the creation of money out of NOTHING as a compound interest bearing DEBT,is as Dr.Ellen Brown suggests.Free your selves from the invisible angle irons and neck less for good.

  13. Comment

    The worst thing about Fed being a private bank, is that it means that the economy of the US is ruled by those highly incompetent and irresponsible bankers who now have caused the worst economic depression in world history.

    President Woodrow Wilson said, 6 yeas after privatizing the Fed: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson 1919

    President John F Kennedy wanted to nationalize the Fed. He was killed a few weeks after that he had declared this intention that would have robbed these highly incompetent bankers of their power. I cannot prove that the bankers killed him, but they had an extremely strong motive to do so.

    This is the most important of all suggestion. Vote for it!

  14. Comment

    Echoing a sentiment repeated herein, Ellen Brown's book, "Web of Debt", and her insights in to the necessity of dissolving the Fed, and restoring the Congressional coining of our money, is mandatory to maintaining our U.S. sovereignty. EVERY element of American life is being undermined by our banking system, and the corporate-government (fascist) partnership set on developing a New World Order. Please educate yourself, and know that you are part of a NEW revolution of change. Forget living by the old paradigm, "That I'm only ONE person, so what can I do?" Become empowered with information that Ms. Brown seems to have the best handle on communicating. Know WHY things are happening to you, and in front of you, the way that they are. Vote to stick this idea in Obama's face.

  15. Comment
    Steve Walker

    Ellen, I made a comment early on and didn’t realize it was you who wrote this idea. I am in the middle of reading your book and then saw your idea. I hope my comment was ok. Wow, thanks for the your wonderful book and dedication to getting the facts out about our monetary system. I watched Money Masters video from the 70’s a few years ago and loved it. What do you think about Chris Martenson’s crash economics course audi and Ravi Batra’s book; “Greenspan’s Fraud” if you know anything about them.


    Steve Walker

  16. Comment

    Once every half century or so somebody actually does their research and identifies crucial anomalies in economic management. Ellen Brown is the pre-eminent person of the 21st century.

    Not only has she exposed the spurious belief systems and non sequiturs of contemporary economics, AND identified the move Government must make to restore economic sanity and prosperity; but she actually cares about what is happening to you and me.

    Bolstering her evidence, I can also direct researchers to the Commonwealth Bank established in Australia, that operated along similar lines to the BND and funded the magnificent Snowy River Scheme, without debt.

    If the Governor of California does not have the balls to install Ellen Brown's suggestions, we may abduct her and utilise her talents in Australia.

    Tony Ryan

  17. Comment

    Thank God for honest, decent people like Ellen Brown. I totally agree that her book "Web of Debt" is a must read for everyone. It is a masterpiece!

    Please keep up the good work you are doing Ellen. We must get as many people to back and support your work as possible

    We will win eventually

    Michael Morley


  18. Comment

    The war over who was to control the money supply and hence America raged for many decades. Was it to be the people through their government or the bankers through their government. Most of the battles were won by the bankers. The writing of the Constitution to replace the Articles was a victory for them and it didn't take economic royalist Hamilton long to give them their national bank--over Jefferson's protests. But the victories were only temporary. Every ten or twenty years the bank charters had to be renewed. This held them up at least to partial light in Congress and the uncontrolled media. Occasionally they were defeated.

    In 1899 M. W. Walbert wrote: “The Coming Battle : A Complete History of the National Banking Money Power in the United States.” Walbert foresaw the final battle for control looming ever closer. Unfortunately, Walbert was overly optimistic. He predicted a victory for the people. In less than a decade and a half, the Fed was created giving the bankers control in virtual perpetuity. It was no longer necessary that their charter be renewed. There was no cause for any serious consideration as to whether to renew or not. The people, and probably most of Congress, lost site of the machinations of the Fed. Since then only a few voices such as Doctor Brown's have been heard crying in the wilderness.

    I think it would take more courage than President Obama has to dare to buck the powers that be. Still, to have a voice of reason in the debate might serve to open the eyes of more Americans and people around the world.

    Anyone who wants to give themselves a homeschool doctorate in economics should take a look at: Do some searching through his online ebooks to find a chronology of books and writings from the early 19th Century to the early to mid-20th.

    The truth is out there! – Fox Mulder

    The truth is! The problem is getting it out there! – PhreedomPhan

  19. Comment
    Lee Herterich

    I hope the right people read Ellen Brown's ideas, part of the solution to our great nation's current problems can be found in her writings. She is one of the more important economic thinkers of our time.

  20. Comment

    Thomas Jefferson gives two thumbs up to Ellen Brown.

    Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson

    February 15, 1791.

    Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank.

    The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things :—

    1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

    2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.*

    3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

    4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

    5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

    6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

    7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

    8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they will be construed.

    I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground : That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

    The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

    1. They are not among the powers specially enumerated, for these are :

    1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

    2d. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

    3d. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade."

    Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

    II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following :

    1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

    2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

    It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true : yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory.

    But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit). Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may be made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the great export of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

    Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience, cannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

    Besides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia, I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption ; therefore, it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

    It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

    Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly ? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too straitlaced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

    The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature : 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection.

    It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.

    * Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.

  21. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    Thanks for voting! I tried to revised it to add a third alternative, but the website wouldn't take it; so I'll put that possibility here:

    (c) In the meantime, the federal deficit could be funded by selling government securities directly to the Federal Reserve rather than to private investors. In either case, the money ultimately originates as a loan to a bank; but funding through the Federal Reserve has the advantages that (i) the Fed rebates the interest to the government after deducting its costs, making the money nearly interst-free; and (ii) the government is freed from pressure by foreign and private creditors capable of raising interest rates, demanding terms and conditions, and destabilizing markets by coordinated bond sales.

    Ellen Brown

  22. Comment

    john kennedy past a law enable president to issue money directly bi passing federal reserve he used it once the law is still in force but no president dare to use it why?

  23. Comment

    Rather than creating the same govt waste with a new federal reserve. We need to have the states issue legal gold and silver tender. That way just as now, states like california would have a weak dollar and Texas would be stronger. This would reward good behavior and punish the bad. Her suggestion for more fractional forgery is doomed to more boom and bust. Rather than lend 10-1 or 12-1, lets actually make a dollar worth having. It is far too important to be playing politics with our money. If this keeps up expect other more stable currency forms to take over. ie gold and silver coins.

  24. Comment

    It has been shown over and over again that using a gold, silver or other commodity standard is doomed to failure. I invite you all to read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' for the most famous example (i.e. England).

  25. Comment

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [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

  26. Comment

    President Obama, I DARE YOU to put this idea into action.

  27. Comment

    I don't remember the exact figures, but the Banking and financial services accounted for roughly 40% of all corporate profit in the US. I think this figure is from 2006 or 2007 but it is nevertheless staggering. If this industry is so profitable and successful (or was before the ruse was widely found-out) then why is it continually subsidized by taxpayer funds on all fronts, in both good times and bad.

    As others have pointed out, we taxpayers pay for our money twice; through direct funding and interest; robbing our government of the ability to maintain financial solidarity and fiscal stability.

    On top of that we fund the continued engineering of complicated financial derivatives which serve little legitimate purpose other than socializing and distributing risk while further protecting private profits.

    I as many others here understand the importance of financial tools that can regulate markets, but these tools must be accountable to taxpayers through taxpayer approved channels - namely our representative congress.

    In no way can the government and the people it represents ever repay all of the interest that is owed on our reserve notes to the private interests and industries that own them.

    We are headed toward a wall which cannot be overcome with that method of banking.

  28. Comment

    The current economic crisis provides a needed window through which we can see some of the fatal flaws inherent in our country’s system of finance. The practice of legally condoned counterfeiting of money, which has been carried on by banks since 1913, has managed to create a permanent funnel for the upward flow of wealth – from working people to financial parasites.

    One topic not discussed here yet is how the creation of money by private banks has robbed the people of our country for a hundred years, since every dollar put in circulation this way reduces the value of every other dollar in existence – in other words, causing continual inflation. The second critical effect has been the imposition of compound interest on loans, leading to a national debt that can never be repaid but condemns every working man and women to fruitless labor for their entire lives. Ms. Brown expalins this phenomenon quite well in her book.

    While Ellen Brown’s proposals are welcome, we should also be aware that legislation has already been drawn up (not for the first time, by a long shot!) that would resolve the issues that concern her and us, called the American Monetary Act, a bill supported by Rep. Kucinich. You can learn the details of this legislation at

    Finally, in addition to Web of Debt I also encourage you to read Stephen Zerlanger’s The Lost Science of Money, National Economy by Arian Forrest Nevin, and anything at all by Frederick Soddy!

    As a side comment: While the Federal Reserve has been attacked in good faith by folks like Ron Paul, these well-meaning people have not properly thought out the issue of commodity currencies such as gold and silver, which have since time immemorial been vehicles for transferring wealth for the people who already have it – including but not limited to the banks.

  29. Comment

    aherodias is proposing that the banks are creating money and stuffing it in their pockets. This is, of course, wrong. With a reserve ratio of 10, the amount of money in the market place is 10x the amount actually printed. What this means is that each dollar gets spent 10 times. It's called money velocity. It's not called counterfeiting nor is it a good reason to go back to a gold standard (something that is proven not to work). It's a way to accelerate the growth of an economy and it's the best method to DISTRIBUTE wealth to those who receive the loans.

    I'm not saying the Fed doesn't have its problems. It does. But removing the ability of banks to LOAN money would cripple this economy.

  30. Comment

    That may be true, but all of this assumes that money is more than it is. Namely we are assuming it is a store of value and not a medium of contract. Money is worthless by all accords except for the instance where the accountancy of which may be used as an equally agreed exchange of goods or services. The real denominational amount is irrelevant except to those who have no means or grounds to bargain on their own accord.

    That being said, both Aherodias and badhack are fundamentally correct in their ascertainment. The compounding of interest on debt does indeed strap our monetary system into a neverending cycle of which there is little to no escape - except by sacrificing all real future economic growth. By this system, realizing growth today comes at the expense of (rather than in support of) future growth*. Our government directly providing this service could serve as a tax-cut and debt easement by transferring debt payments to subsidize private industry into revenue. Every dollar of interest paid (and the interest paid on interest) is a DIRECT taxpayer subsidy to banking and financial service industries.

    *Please note I use the term growth not to denote the real expansion of goods or services or consumerism, but the pursuit of knowledge and opportunity which affords our society the ability to realize efficiencies and adapt to changing market and environmental conditions.

    Noting badhack's postulation regarding the velocity of money, this is indeed true - and as the cycle moves - each physical unit of currency (real or created) touches each hand. The distinction here is that those at the top have the ability and desire to consolidate profits or otherwise benefit from the cash-flow dynamics of monetary velocity. In essence, those at the top have first take (by being first in line to receive velocity) and realize real profit increases before inflation strikes. It is only after each person in line has taken their share of the pie that inflationary pressures on real prices take effect. Long after the rich have leveraged their new-found income into other "generating" investments, prices rise due to the new currency base.

    The poor feel the effects twice - by receiving a smaller piece of the pie, and through the inflationary pressures of paying for the increased profit or operating costs of others. That's how it works. Your business raises its prices because your suppliers raised theirs. Your real cost of doing business does not increase beyond the static +/- 3% change in wages. Even this is only to "keep up with inflation".

    This concept is the time-value of money velocity. We will never be rid of inflation - and it is arguably necessary to continue currency backed by no tangible assets other than collective perception. However, the current model allows for direct and indirect benefit by the rich and even working classes at the expense of those less fortunate.

    It's legalized debt-slavery.

  31. Comment

    I speak FOR the proposal!

    badhack 5 hours ago said...

    "aherodias is proposing that the banks are creating money and stuffing it in their pockets. This is, of course, wrong."

    This is, or course a crass deception of either what aherodias said or meant, or what this proposal contends, or the truth. In fact, there are quite a few steps or maneuvers the banks must go though before they get to stuff if in their pockets and vaults. One big one is to lend the money out at interest that doubles the loan about every 8 to 12 years. Of course they can do this 10 times or more with each dollar of deposits. This is a legal Ponzi scheme, and it is "legal" only because the people and their representatives are too ignorant to understand money and finance... except for those who are profiting from the crooked system, hand over fist.

    badhack said...

    "... it's the best method to DISTRIBUTE wealth to those who receive the loans."

    Far from it. It is the best way to transfer WEALTH from the people (lenders) to the bankers.

    "But removing the ability of banks to LOAN money would cripple this economy."

    Not if it were done properly, with a proper plan of nationalization and bank reorganization.

    Banks should stick to the banking business and get out of the sovereign business of money creations!

    Please everyone. Read Ellen H Brown's masterpiece, "Web of Debt". Google it and learn what is keeping us in debt slavery to the money-changers.

  32. Comment

    After a few beers, there is no way I am going to try to absorb all these comments...

    But this I can say with confidence: you are all trying to deal with economic issues in terms of banks--a mono-diet of capital. You think that banks are the economy, and you are wrong--bankers are nothing but the money changers Christ tossed from the temple: middle-types collecting coming and going, up and down. we win they win, we lose they win. With each revolution of the cycle they ratchet down our wages and raise theirs. They get more rights (liberatians), and we get less rights (socialists).

    The economy rides on the backs of the worker and in today's service economy, there is an ongoing to attempt to replace the native worker with foreign workers, especially foreign rejects (which is especially scary when you consider conditions in Latin America). So we all just circulate out in orbit here in cyber space on the president's change-type site attempting to make economic cases that the president will listen to.

    Forget it, Wikipedia does a much better job of speculating as to why(?) things suck so bad when they should be so good.

    If you are going to be unemployed and given to gab, then consult the experts--the Irish--and view their culture for what it is worth: drinking beer is not an escape, but a triumph!!!

  33. Comment
    Christine Baker

    John, you inspired me to open a Pilsner Urquell, prost!

    As an alternative to the Irish, I recommend the German monasteries where they (used to?) fast and the only "food" was the beer they had brewed. Good stuff!

    In fact, I've said for years that if I was a guy, I'd seriously consider joining a monastery and leave all the BS behind.

    Since that wasn't an option, I chose the desert and I hope to one day enjoy some desert wine, the grapes are doing great.

    I totally agree that banking is only PART of the overall problem. That said, I voted for Ellen's proposition even though I expect nothing to come of it.

    Does ANYONE actually believe that Obama could simply take the power to create money away from the banks even if he wanted to?

    I'll be thrilled if Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed passes.

    So for all who REALLY want to make a difference, VOTE with your MONEY!

    I defaulted on $90,000 in credit card debt and if just a few million Americans voted with their money, we'd see some serious changes.

    My open letter to WaMu explaining my business decision to stop paying my debts is posted on the web.

    I also created a new currency -- money NOT created by the banks, the TRADO.

    As long as MOST people cheerfully pay their taxes and their debts, nothing will change.

    My prediction: that's exactly what will happen and the only changes might be a new national sales tax and fewer civil rights.

    Cheers to that!

  34. Comment

    I'm no economist, but I thought badhack was off base when he said the ten fold increase was from velocity of money. I always thought that was a product of the fractional reserve system. As I understand it, the government goes to the fed with treasury paper against which the fed prints notes. This is probably an oversimplification, but the government then pays its bills, presumably by check. As these checks are cashed and funds redeposited by creditors down the line, most of the notes wind up either in the vaults of the member banks or maybe in the vaults of the fed and credited to the member bank accounts. These become the reserve to meet the requirements. But they are themselves a demand deposit. So, if $1 million is deposited in the banks, it can be expanded another $4 million in bookkeeping entries to a total of $5 million including the original notes. The bankers know, or hope, that there will be no demand for the entire sum. While the reserve notes and bookkeeping entries represent no wealth, the interest returned to the banks does represent the wealth produced by the people and it is transferred to the banks. I believe that's why so many small businesses have been gobbled up by giant corporations. As jerehough says, the wealth is transferred to the bankers. I don't agree that it's a Ponzi scheme. It's definitely a fraud and a swindle, but I think a Ponzi scheme is a pyramid racket with people at the bottom getting paid "dividends" with monies being gathered at the top until there is no one left to fill the top.

    But what do I know about money? I can't even go to Starbucks anymore. My credit rating dropped and I can't get financing.

  35. Comment

    Ooops. The above should have read: Far from it. It is the best way to transfer WEALTH from the people (borrowers/debtors) to the bankers.

    I might add that all of that doubling of interest profit on each dollar loaned into existence by the private bankers COULD be going to the public treasury to reduce taxes, built national, state and community infrastructure, and provide the commonwealth with abundance in proportion to their REAL production and labor. Under the current system most of the profits from production and labor are siphoned off by the bankers, and their voodoo economic systems and money machines.

    Please awaken, good people. Demand a return of your sovereign right to contractual money, and make it a servant of the people as Lincoln said it should be - rather than our master.

  36. Comment

    John66bessa, when your hangover wears off, go to and read some stuff there. Better yet, buy the book and read all of it.

  37. Comment

    Walk into any law library. Pull U.S. Code Title 1 off the shelf, and after the Declaration of Independence, you'll see the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. In Article IX you'll read: "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to...borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States." Although the Constitution altered the Articles, it never repealed them, otherwise Article 7 wouldn't have made allowance for the Union to wear two hats: one for States ratifying the Constitution; another for States preferring to remain under the Articles. Thus, Ellen is right that Congress can create paper money, not only because it's an implied power under the Constitution, but an express power under the Articles.

    However, I disagree that the Fed should be nationalised, esp. as there's a poison pill provision in the Federal Reserve Act. Every free market profits from competition, so Congress should simply should go into competition with the private bankers, as it did during the Civil War when emitting greenbacks and the Revolutionary War when emitting Continentals. Otherwise we'll wind up subsidising the Fed's shareholders by overpaying for its toxic balance sheet.

  38. Comment

    In response to phreedomphan, the power assumed by this bill to create paper money has been delegated by the Articles, and the power to incorporate a bank has been delegated by the Constitution in Art.4 Sec.3 to the US in federal territories: the Reconstruction Development Bank could thereby be revived in DC; the Government Development Bank already is in operation in Puerto Rico, and could easily emit bills of credit tomorrow, if Congress approved that today. In response to others, ND may not create its own money, as Art.1 Sec.10 prohibits States from emitting (physical or electronic) bills of credit. It may only have the Fed create do so for it.

  39. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    All banks "create money" by the multiplier effect, as President Obama himself said recently at Georgetown University. In fact, that's where 97% of the M3 money supply comes from. If banks can create money, and if a state can own a bank, a state can create money. But neither the states nor the federal government generally engages in that practice. Instead of creating its own credit, the government has borrowed from banks that created it.

  40. Comment

    Precisely, Ellen. It is monetary velocity - which refers to the methodology of leveraging money to someone else, or the speed by which it is promised to more an more people. Every tangible dollar in your pocket is owed to someone else for another debt many times over. The Federal Reserve only supplies the basis by which the private bankers conjure their own "currency" which is really just debt leveraged against those few bills in circulation and a collective perceived delusion that money is actually worth something.

    Because of this system, which we call fractional reserve - but due to mathematical wizardry really isn't even that; Congress and even the fed have very little control over the money supply or the effects of monetary policy. This is no more evident than Bernake's complete failure on every metric to ease the financial crisis. Reported interest rates are basically zero, and we're printing like they're going to take the press away - but it has had little to no tangible effect on the financial system or the real economy.

    That is simply because our real monetary system operates outside the control of government. Assuming the 10x leverage ratio is real, that means the Fed can only optimally control 10% of the flow of capital, and that's on the best of days. However, the world-wide shadow economy that exists carries multipliers much higher than 10x. In some industries, such as derivatives they can be as high as 40x. In aggregate, we're probably looking at 15x-20x. Coupled with the fact hat nearly half of our money is exchanged for good and services overseas, and reserve quotas count for nothing; this brings the FED's effective policy power to less than 3%.

    I believe in free enterprise; and I believe in light, simple, and effective regulation. That being said, our monetary system - and transitively our entire economy - is by no means free. It is our duty to protect our own liberty and the constitutional rights of our legislature.

    Whether President Obama initiates this process or not is of little consequence, because we cannot truly recover from this current economic catastrophe until control of our money is returned to the people. Enough people realize this absolute fact that it will happen. When our money stops serving its purpose, people will turn to other standards of measure for trade, most likely a barter system.

    Lets see what that does to tax revenues. Remember, any power that bankers exert over us (as groups, not individuals) is provided by our own free will. We have the vested power granted by our representative democracy and we give our control away collectively and of our own accord.

  41. Comment


    Betting the Fed

    Robert Kuttner

    The Federal Reserve can do what democratic institutions can't. But its days as a shadow government may be numbered.

    ''If you want to be slaves to banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, let the bank create the money''

    They create it out ofNOTHING as compound interest

    bearing debt.

    Interest is not necessary or nevitable. good article below.


    Betting the Fed

    Robert Kuttner

    The Federal Reserve can do what democratic institutions can't. But its days as a shadow government may be numbered.

  42. Comment
    Steve Walker

    These comments are awesome. This gives me so much hope for our country's future. Sometimes things have to get really bad before they get better. The past 8 years have woken up many people. I'll bet 5 years ago, few of the people making comments on this topic have the knowledge they have now. Same goes for the media problem and the military industrial complex. Keep up the research people, and don't forget to 911, it changed everything!

  43. Comment

    911 was an inside job to get us into a war with Iraq, As disastrous as that is for millions of people, the ones who fomented it and their friends are making plenty of money by it. It's another reason we need to get the bankers out of government.

  44. Comment

    I have enjoyed the good arguments against my original post!

    However, we all must understand that this was a forum designed to brainstorm open government. The entire text of this particular debate about banks is completely off topic and will probably not be heard (regardless of which position you support).

  45. Comment

    The Gov't Development Bank in PR goes by 'Fomento' in Spanish. I was assuming that the only way to 'create money' oneself with no interest due via one's own bank is to emit bills of credit as scrip/greenbacks/continentals. Even if such creation is only a bookkeeping entry, it is still will be prohibited to a State bank, when trying to 'emit' that money. Yet a State can have its interest-free money created via Fed mechanisms (as in alternative c), as long as the Fed holds interest rates at zero, or via congressionally chartered banks such as the RDB or Fomento. If Congress were to allow such banks to compete with the Fed, for lending to a state gov't bank, then the Fed would have to offer it zero interest rates to stay competitive, or provide it more or better services. So I voted for Ellen's idea, using alternative b) as a way to compete w/the Fed.

  46. Comment

    The Fed's back-room deals with commercial (& foreign central) banks, would be open to congressional scrutiny if done by a gov't bank, such as Fomento or the RDB, rather than the private Fed. Currently its deals are proprietary & trade secrets - even were they available to Congress in closed session - so failing all the more to qualify as "open gov't."

  47. Comment
    Bart Klein Ikink

    Dear Ellen,

    I have read your proposal. I have worked further on the natural money monetary system for many months now. Natural money is similar to your proposal but it has two differences:

    - a fixed money supply;

    - a complete ban on usury.

    I have found out that this will create the most efficient monetary system and that it will be superior to any other monetary system in competition. I am therefore convinced that natural money will become the monetary system of the future.

    You can read the introduction here:

    I also have posted the idea on the government brainstorm website. You can find it here:

    It is posted as idea #2027.


    Bart klein Ikink

  48. Comment


    While I agree with your perspective on workers, exporting of jobs, service economy, etc., you’re over-simplifying the views on banking expressed in this thread. Of course monetary reform is only one facet of the kind of changes this society needs to take care of the real needs of real people and not just transfer wealth into the pockets of the wealthy. It would be great to replace the entire competition-for-profit economy with a truly humane system that honors everyone’s place in the world – but I’m content to work on a few important issues that stand a chance of implementation.

    If you don’t think that bankers and banking are crucial, then how about this:

    Senator Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, was interviewed on on WJJG 1530 AM's "Mornings with Ray Hanania." In that interview, the subject of which was banking reform, Sen. Durbin said, “And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

    Then this week, Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, told the New York Times, “The banks run the place,” He went on to say, “I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”

    Many brilliant people have noted that whoever controls the money supply controls the economy of a nation, and hence controls the government and all the rest.

    But there’s one point on which you’re seriously off track. While it’s true that banks and corporations are indeed busy, with the assistance of our government, in shipping their businesses overseas where they can take advantage of cheap labor – your comments about “foreign rejects” coming from Latin America are pure bigotry. Unfortunately you’re swallowing the same old racist line of crap that the folks in charge have been ladling out to the working class since this country began.

    And Badhack:

    If you don’t think that discussion of a secretive process of creating money by private for-profit banks belongs in a forum on “open government” I don’t know what your idea of open government could be. Why is the issue of controlling money off the table when it is the principal factor in keeping our wealth so egregiously maldistributed?

    The essential argument is that our government should be in charge of money creation, not a cartel of bankers. Nobody is arguing that the process of loaning money should be discontinued, just that it should be operated in its proper place.

    And by the way, banks do not “loan” money. If you loaned me 50 dollars, you would not have access to those 50 bucks while I would. When a bank makes a “loan” it can credit your account for the dollars – and get to use the same dollars over again by “lending” to someone else!

  49. Comment

    I can't understand how the banks and mortgage companies have been getting away with it. I pay FAR MORE interest every year on our home than I pay taxes. I'd rather pay more taxes and LESS interest on my loan!

    Instead of accruing 6% every year, how about 4% every two years?? Something has to change. It's absolutely criminal how much money the banks make on our loans. I'd love to see more not-for-profit banks, or national banks. Let's have some sensible reform. It's nearly impossible in today's economy to pay off a home loan. That's got to change.

  50. Comment
    Christine Baker

    Lasiewiczn, sign up at and definitely watch their video.

    It's a shame that they can't open because only "qualified investors" (millionaires) are allowed to invest in the $1.5 mill required start-up capital. (US law)

    $1.5 mill is NOTHING compared to the trillions thrown at the big banks. Thousands of Americans could finance the CGB by writing a check. All those "liberal" actors etc are all talk, no action. They have no problem financing politicians to gain influence.

    The CGB has everything in place (surveys, regulatory requirements, partners for ATMs, etc.) including a very experienced and qualified CEO and other key staff.

    You can't have non profit bank, but the CGB is as good as it gets.

    If anyone is interested in forming a credit union NOW (they're non profit), please contact me. They're fairly easy and cheap to start -- compared to a bank.

  51. Comment

    I am in 100% support of Ellen Brown's idea. Her book, Web of Debt, should be required reading in every American high school and college. Until the people take back control of the money system, we will all be slaves to the bankers!

    If national and state-owned banks lent money out at low interest to small-scale sustainable businesses that buy supplies as locally as possible and sell their products locally, these loans would circulate many times over in local economies. This would stimulate millions of jobs, help end global warming, and empower working people and entrepeneurs to feel the potential for doing good with their lives! What a different world it could be!

  52. Comment
    David Snieckus

    I also support Ellen brown!

    Here's a bit in support of that vote.

    david snieckus


    Buy the Federal Reserve?

    A bit outrageous?


    Willing to look at ONE possibility?

    ( Okay okay…it’s a bit farfetched…but consider it!)

    The thought of buying the Federal Reserve is most likely an outrageous statement to most. However, think: Congress created the privately owned Federal Reserve in 1913 (a bit suspiciously, I might add) therefore it can un-create the Federal Reserve as soon as it wants to…(or has the guts!)

    Recently Senator Dodd and Senator Schumer were rejected when they requested credit card companies to immediately halt retroactive interest rate increases from the Federal Reserve.

    Heck…I say…TELL THEM! Individuals in Congress have to start taking their leadership role and change the behavior of the Federal Reserve from transferring wealth to a few to all citizens of the United States.

    One of the reasons the Federal Reserve exists is to keep all of us including many nations in perpetual debt, something I let go of years ago.

    I believe the United States Government can also get out of debt. Here’s how!

    In 8 years, the greatest ECONOMIC IDEA ever to hit America could come to fruition!

    The Goal: For the United States to be out of debt and have global prosperity.

    How? On April 15, 2009, I sent the President eight seeds of rice and a check for $220 Trillion Dollars. The seeds were real, the check was not, but could be if the current President follows the revolutionary act of planting the seed at the White House and then creating “The Bank of the Greater United States.” (“Greater” because one seed is more powerful in its ability to regenerate interest than any paper money, especially the declining Federal Reserve Note!)

    In eight years, that one seed of rice planted in the White House Garden will produce 214 grains of rice. If they are planted in the spring of 2010 and all the grain is harvested and planted for seven years, then in the Fall of 2017 the United States will have 4 quintillion, 398 quadrillion, 556 trillion, 620 billion, 369 million, 714 thousand and 700 hundred grains of rice. Divide that by 20,000, the number of grains it takes to make a pound, and you have 219,927,831,018,485 lbs of grain. Say in 2017, rice is valued at a $1.00 a pound. The total value of the grain would be $220 Trillion. Now that truly is greater than what any man made derivative or credit swap can produce. It’s truly powerful. It’s Mother Nature’s bank yielding plenty.

    As a sovereign nation, the President or Congress can create “The Bank of the Greater United States” collateralized by “seed money” with the stroke of a pen and a few thousand newly employed people to manage, help plant, and harvest the grain.

    Currently the National debt is $12 Trillion. $220 TRILLION in 2016 could be enough to pay off the ever-increasing debt. (If not plant more seeds!) The new incoming President in 2017 would inherit a debt free country! Now that is a totally NEW ECONOMIC IDEA!

    All the current President has to do is plant one seed today….

    BUT WHY WAIT….If the President doesn’t PLANT IT….what about YOU? You could plant one seed of rice to yield plenty and create real value for yourself and others. On a massive scale the world population would prosper!

    For more info contact David at 617-964-2951 or

    David Snieckus

    99 Crescent Street

    Newton, MA 02466


    The math:

    Plant 1 seed in the garden in the first year you will harvest 214 grains

    Plant 214 grains in the second year you will harvest 45,796 grains.

    Plant 45, 796 seeds in the third year and you will harvest 9,800,344 grains

    Plant 9,800,344 in the fourth year and you will harvest 2,097,273,618 grains

    Plant 2,097,273,618 in the fifth year and harvest 448,816,553,824 grains

    Plant 448,816,553,824 in the sixth year & harvest 96,046,742,518,33 grains

    Plant 96,046,742,518,336 in the 7th year = 20,554,002,898,923,904 grains

    Plant 20,554,002,898,923,904 in year 8 = 4,398,556,620,369,714,700 grains

    So at the end of the President’s eighth year in office there will be:

    · 4 quintillion,

    · 398 quadrillion,

    · 556 trillion,

    · 620 billion,

    · 369 million, 714 thousand and 700 hundred grains.

    Now divide that by 20,000 (number of grains per pound) and you have:

    The math is 4,398,556,620,369,714,700 divided by 20,000 equals 219,927,831,018,485.

    So at about a $1.00 per pound (in 2017), the grain will yield 219 trillion, 927 billion, 831 million, 18 thousand, 485 dollars. I rounded it off to $220 trillion.

    (My Calculations show that in the eighth year, only 3 million acres would need to be planted)…Hell there are 171,904, 640 acres in Texas!

    · $220 TRILLION could be enough to pay off the debt with a bit of pocket change for implementation AND give the incoming President in 2018 a debt free country. If not plant more seeds!

    To begin, all the President has to do is plant one seed today. OR

    You could to yield plenty and ultimate prosperity to be shared around the world.

    Contact me at 617-964-2951 or and we will work out the details.

  53. Comment

    Federal Reserve attitude is growing, who got stimulated.

    Grass roots results of the Stimulus plan. Be obedient or else? I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed but....

    At the gas station, $10 in the tank. Cashier says the card machine is broken. I use the ATM, $2 fee.

    My cell phone is ringing.

    Oops, now my $177 check to Vectren Energy for the gas bill bounces. I get a $30 nsf bank fee. I have $280 security deposit with Vectren, but they shut off the gas anyway.

    I answer the cell phone. ATT Cingular is calling, they tell me that I have too much cash reserve in my pre-paid phone account and if they charge my $19 monthly fee it will go over the $250 maximum and they will turn off the phone and keep the $250. They did shut off the phone and they did take my $250!

    I walk into Chase bank to cash a check that my friend, who has had an account with them for many years, wrote me for $100. The teller says I must pay a $6 fee to get the $94. I say OK can I get a receipt? No, we don't have to give you a receipt. So I guess the banks don't have to report that income.

    If a company you are doing business with is friendly with your bank they use the Credit process to get funds your bank account, if you don't have enough in the account that bank gets $30 NSF (gotcha) fee plus daily fees until you get caught up. If the company you are doing business with uses the Debit process and you don't have the money in the account. The company doesn't get paid, the bank gets no NSF fee and the company just doesn't give you the product or service. Banks collect millions daily from the Gotcha process. So, using the Credit process if you are sick, poor, hungry, dumb, savant, broke or just not good at managing your money and you charge $1 the bank gets $30+.

    On and on, have we all become lazy, incompetent or just plain predatorial? Those are four examples of how we now treat each other as a result of the fundamental breakdown and abuse of our banking system. It is a private entity and has turned our government into an institution instead of a government.

    The future.

    I am looking for some extra income. Wow Donald Trump has bought a company called Ideal Health. And we all love Donald Trump. Woo hoo I am excited, a new job? Listening to the company (Ideal Health) doctor on the phone last night he tells us, as a result of cost constraints, that they are using GMO foods, (Genetically Modified Organisms). OK that’s Ideal. Knowing that Monsanto, the pesticide company has 11,000 patents on GMO's, and they must be great because they sued the Country of Germany last month to force them to use GMO seed for their crops. I presume that they are also our new partner. Woo hoo, gonna get rich now.

    Then I think about Grandpa, who had to go the bank, the mortgage holder on his small farm, and be told what to grow in his fields. Because the bank owns all the corporate farms around him and they get millions of dollars in tax and financial subsidies every year based on what they grow. Grandpa got none. Grandpa died broke. God bless you grandpa we know you all did your best.

    If you think the lack of or loss of social responsibility in the Federal Reserve banking system towards our own people has nothing to do with hundreds of millions of people around the world fearing our federal banking backed war machine you better think again.

    Folks we better do something! And we better do it fast. Because our Democracy is being threatened. Taking Back the Power to Create Money from the Private Banking Industry will be a monumental but necessary advancement for our society that will give the citizens of our nation the fairness they deserve, put justice and regulation back in the hands of the people and help preserve our democracy.

    Our children and the world are counting on us.

    Michael B

  54. Comment

    Wow, Michael I think you hit the nail on the head.

    Certainly conveys what it means to be poor in this country. You have to be rich.

    Does that sink in to everyone?

    you have to be rich to be poor.

    Banks wont give you an account, so you have to go to the check cashing place and pay more to get what is rightfully yours. Who owns the check cashing place? The banks... They say you are a liability. You're only a liability because they wont give you the opportunity to do good for yourself. It's legal discrimination, not based in fact reality or past performance; but what other people have said about you TRUE OR FALSE. There is no opportunity to defend yourself. In their eyes; we're guilty - never to be proven innocent.

    Cant afford a car? Well you can't take the bus anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. You have to sacrifice it all just to fulfill a basic need. Africa might have it way worse in relativity, but at least they do not stare in the face of tantalizing opportunity every day, afforded to those who sell out their virtues for a shot at the big-time.

    Want to make something of yourself? "It takes money to make money"... You cant get a loan cause you have no income. How can you have any income when all industries now require at least a technical or even a bachelors degree?

    So many people like you, including myself, are in this position. We have not enjoyed the fruits of our labor in decades. Any "disposable income" (yeah, that's what they call it. DISPOSABLE!) is squandered chasing delusions or is robbed from our pockets blindly. I've probably given banks, utilities, and other corporations tens of thousands in penalties and fees levied which provide no additional service, and were levied unfairly or even illegally. What are you goona do about it? Can't afford a lawyer.

    Despite inherent freedom and equal liberty for all, we are afforded little. We have to pay to participate. Make us worry more about putting dinner on the table than how to solve our problems. It's really easy to steal from someone when they are looking to other way. We have to pay up every day for our constitutionally vested rights. That keeps us from really standing up to protect ourselves. That keep us disadvantaged, disenfranchised, and divided.

    That is the Weimar republic.

  55. Comment

    Buying back the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:

    1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;

    2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)

    3. So it will be a looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision in case of nationalisation.

    We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is one such bank, but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to for State banks to create greenbacks, and to implement federal monetary policy: neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business to run the system "evolved" by private national banks.

    Otherwise we might as well nationalise Las Vegas.

  56. Comment

    Although I voted for the measure, I do not entirely agree on the methodology. I would prefer that the Federal Reserve Act be repealed, and that the Treasury issue currency based on gold and silver. What the bankers do with it is their business.

    Borrowing from the Federal Reserve has resulted in nothing but inflation. The value of our money supply has been devalued by 95% and we have nothing to show for it but debt. How to resolve the debt issue is open to debate, but I suggest either monetizing it, or repudiating it.

    Here's a novel suggestion: have gold and silver woven into the paper from which currency is made.

  57. Comment

    The Federal Reserve Act has a poison pill provision to make its repeal advantageous to the Fed's shareholders, and the Treasury should not be running the Federal Reserve System is needed to run the national system of private banks. The Act can simply be ignored with regard to a system of gov't banks, state & federal. That will get the Fed out of gov't business, and the gov't out of private business. The Treasury already issues currency in the form of gold & silver coins, and the bankers should be as free not to denominate their accounts in it as they do any foreign currency. The historical trade dollar (officially XUSD) was an ounce of silver (officially XAG), and so is the current silver dollar minted by it. Thus my preference is for Treasury dollars to be pegged to the price of silver, such that all interest on silver bonds be paid out in silver, similar to the old gold bonds, except that the principal would need to be rolled over.

  58. Comment

    Addendum to aherodius: Not only does the banking industry contribute by far the most money to campaigns, they further threaten economic downturn (read: recession/depression) if the congressional stooges don't comply. And it's not an empty threat. We have a system mathematically impossible to sustain because it forces the borrowers into an impossible contract. If a person (or country) has 0 dollars to use for commerce or whatever and they borrow $100 but must pay back $110, where is that other $10 bucks going to come from? If only The Fed is allowed to create money, then the only thing that can happen is that more money must be borrowed to service the debt further enlarging the principal which means that the debt can never be repaid. The result is that when debts get so large that the interest cannot be paid, people, businesses and even countries default sending a wave of losses through the system. They call these waves "business cycles" but they are not caused by business, they are caused by the unsustainability (aka fraud) built into the system and the cycles of boom and bust are manipulated by the FED via the raising and lowering of interest rates. So, if they threaten an administration with a bust, they can well carry it out and no-one in politics wants to be the guy on whose watch the economy tanked. (Except maybe Bush who is, well, an idiot-puppet and just wants to go home to the ranch.)

  59. Comment

    Yeah! Bush was an idiot-puppet. Clinton was an idiot-puppet. Obama is an idiot puppet. These guys are so stupid they need someone to help them find the bank where they've stashed all our money. We find a steam grate that isn't taken all by ourselves. Ain't we the smart ones?

  60. Comment

    Ellen has done yeoman (yeowoman) work in this area of fractionalized reserve banking and the need to reverse it back to the public sector. Others, particularly James Robertson in the UK has been hammering away on this need for several decades.

    I think defractionalization of banks, use of complimentary currencies and a carbon-based international reserve currency are all elements that should be discussed with the Obama Administration to arrive at a New Monetary Foundation, Obama's application of his New Foundation philosophy to both national and international monetary policies.

  61. Comment

    Stop the wars and stop the bailouts

    Stop the wars and send the money back to taxpayers. Void the trillion sent to wall street banksters and AIG. They got this money due to a corrupt wall street bankster who was appointed head of treasury and head of fed.

    Indict and jail Bernanke, Paulsons and Geithner (sp?). The money by these people to their own companies and institutions are null and void due to this corruption.

    Use money from wars $500 Billion and from banksters $1200 Billion to create full employment. Govt starts infrastructure project in every major city above 500K population. Update water, sewer and electric. Add mass transportation use Japanese/German/french model of high speed high frequency fully inter connected mass transit.

    GM plants are changed over to make mass transit vehicles like vans, buses, light rail and underground trains. Allow people to use minivans and provide low cost local transportation using jitney as in Philly. private transport jitneys provide jobs to people and low cost transport to people. Use vans from GM to be leased to jitney drivers with good driving record and reasonable credit.

    Other jobs can be to build wind power plants and installation. Closed GM plants make mass produced wind power stations. Should be easy to mass produce and easy to sell. Since tax payers are now owners of GM they should get the wind mills for almost. Subsidiary jobs are created in installing and maintaining the wind mill infra structure. Each house and each apartment eligible for no fee permit to add wind power. Wind power installation technicians come out after installation and once a year after to safety check the systems. Property tax reduction for wind mill/solar other renewable energy mechanisms.

    Govt trained farm techs help people create and maintain backyard gardens. 20% of food and 20% of power be generated locally. Give people confidence and support to become independent and off grid or at least 20% of their food and power should be grown locally or better yet home grown (anybody remember Victory gardens).

    No more empire no more war crazed chosen bankster controlled mega government going around and bombing various people under various lying pretexts. Make the world our friend and business customers. Job of minimal govt to maintain good will and trade (export of US made products) around the world. The job of US embassies around the world stops meddling in the affairs of other countries but rather to help US products and their manufacturers for export into the countries where they are posted.

    The federal reserve scam of having the treasury print money for .05 cents and then federal reserve lends it out at its face value ($100) along with interest ($2 or $3 per year). Since the fed does not print the interest ($2 or $3 per year) after some 30/50 years or so the economic baloon busts because the country does not have the extra money, which was not printed in the first place, to pay their loans.

    Govt should print and issue money as clearly stated in the constitution. The government can not and must not be charged interest for it's own money. The government issues the money in proportion to its income. The government uses the money for infrastructure and health care.

    As a reference try and get the book The Lost Science of Money. It is great book although a bit expensive.

  62. Comment

    This post is popular but not nearly as popular as the posts asking for Obama to make his birth certificate, college record, health records and the like available.

    Count Birth Certificate comments here and you will get over 7,000 But, this site has been rigged so that the posts asking for Obama to support transparency by providing his own birth certificate, health records and college records are not properly counted, even when they do not get deleted. All of the multiple posts would not need to exist if the honest reporting of this site showed the number one request here is for Obama to release his records.

    I have done a personal count of more than 1,000 requests for his birth certificate. My analysis suggests there have been at least 7,000 request for Obama to produce his real birth certificate, college records, health records and other financial records.

    It is possible to review this site to find the most requested ideas by scanning "Top Rated" posts, but the requests for Obama's records do not show up as being top rated. Those runnig this site are cooking the results. If the results were honest people would be able to continue to vote on a single post asking for transparency of Obama's records.

    According to the liars running this website the most requested item has NOT been Obama's birth certificate.

    (My email is - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)

  63. Comment


    The problem with the monetary reformers in the U.K and the AMI in the US were; that they were all ignorant of the fact that the Bank of England was never nationalised in the true sense.I had to put several of them right in this aspect and tails between their legs had to concede.So it was all a lot of hot air and waffle.

    I had the privilege of knowing Dr.Ellen Brown she is indomitable, through in her you all can support her with out reservations. I firmly believe that interest is not necessary or inevitable how ever small the percentage is.Money should be issued at NIL interest.

    This problem has to be addressed on a country by country basis, to each according to their priorities without any interference from the international snoopers, of unelected un accountable stooges of Washington Consensus or BIS, in Switzerland a tax haven, that have lived off the ill gotten gains of criminals..

    When I challenged leader of a developing country when that country, was targeted by the busy bodies who were hoping to asset strip, for the benefits of US Transnationals;he had the courage to tell the guys that they were unelected unaccountable stooges and unfit to dictate to a sovereign leader of a sovereign country.''so get out''

    There was a howl went around the capitals of the world buy the so called economic pundits, he took them all full frontal and with in six months turned the fortunes of that country around .


  64. Comment

    The proposal contained in Helen Brown’s two points above will NEVER, ever be implemented through the existing political channels. Every president or prominent politician who ever attempted it was either assassinated or marginalized, going all the way back to Franklyn. Of course, this isn't proof of cause-and-effect; but the pattern is very compelling, and it's not far fetched that when it comes to protecting huge power, the one who holds it is going to stop at nothing to protect it. The economy is now a runaway train, and there’s no way to stop it, because almost the entire political and financial structure is intertwined with one another, in a symbiotic relationship for mutual survival, and taking from it the ability to create and manage money is to cut off their lifeline. I have watched this train for more than 40 years, and its regulatory breaks dismantled. A cancer of this type can only be allowed to die by consuming its host, until it has no further food.

    The only path available is direct takeover by individuals; direct ownership of the existing banking apparatus. CREDIT UNIONS: Credit unions are owned by its members, and enjoy a variety of benefits over policy and practice, and one person—one vote gives all voices equal power. There has been some contamination of Credit Union behavior, where we have seen absurd fees and charge. Many of these have been imposed at the instigation of the banking folks through the Federal agency regulating Credit Union. This will have to be reviewed and revised, but only after the takeover is complete, or as complete as achievable in our time.

    Barriers to achieve a total direct citizenry ownership of the money supply have to be tackled. There are about 3700 Credit union locations throughout the country, as compared to 75000 bank branches. Certain Credit Union Regulations make it difficult to find a credit union one can join. In many places, they can’t be found at all. These are barriers that can be overcome through plebiscites to create state credit unions, allowing existing bank branches to be its branches if they want, or using the Motor Vehicle system, and other easy public access systems.

    There are many other problems with banking. The (a) and (b) would be inadequate to handle such problems, and if such a takeover were to be accomplished, a complete system would have to be well delineated and ready to go into place.

    More, much more another time…

  65. Comment

    99.9% is an exaggeration. There's currently a 10% reserve ratio, which means 90% MAX increase in money supply, assuming NO excess reserves.

  66. Comment

    ribond86, is that a 90% MAX increase or a 900% increase? I'm not being critical. I really want to know if I misunderstood something. If I was off that much, I'm surprised my Money and Banking instructor didn't throw me out of the class.

  67. Comment

    Whoa, nice catch, phreedomphan. I meant to say "90% of our money is created by banks." Which is a 900% increase overall. Sorry to be of confusion. Still, 99.9% is an exaggeration. Up to 90% of our money supply is created by loans. However in practice this number is lower.

  68. Comment

    I think it would have been easier to say that, "a reserve rate of .10 creates a total money supply of 10x the amount of hard cash, or money supply=hard cash/reserve ratio."

    But I think saying that, "banks create money by making loans," is the wrong way to think about it. I like to think of it like this: before banks even enter the process the Fed sets the total amount of money by setting the reserve ratio AND the amount of hard cash. These two acts creates the total amount of money, but that money isn't in circulation. The banks are merely agents that take the money out of the govts hands and puts it in circulation with loans. Whether or not banks are evil, I'm not going to argue. But I will argue that banks create money. It's a misnomer.

  69. Comment

    Here BadHack, Argue with these guys.

    James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

    Frederic Bastiat: The Law "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

    John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose."

    Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816 “I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

    John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 240 "If, however, a government refrains from regulations and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

    John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose."

    Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta."This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defect remedied very soon."

    Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England: "Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."

    Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of Exchequer, England "Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

    Wm. Jennings Bryan "Money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."

    Andrew Jackson: To delegation of bankers discussing the Bank Renewal Bill, 1832 "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

    Oh, and that is just a sampling. I have hundreds of other quotes just like them. Maybe I'll post some more tomorrow.

  70. Comment

    badhack, as I've said, I'm not an economist and frankly it's been over twenty years since I read most of what I have read on economics and banking, but I still say that when a bank makes a "loan" though through a bookkeeping entry, it's creating money. It doesn't hand out cash. If it did, then a "fractional reserve" system would not exist. The circulating "currency," such as it is may be in the form of checks or just an exchange of bookkeeping entries transferring the demand deposit to another bank or account. When the merchant/banker of the middle ages, the forerunner of today's banker, issued gold receipts in excess of gold he had in his vaults, he was creating money. It may have been fraudulant money, but it flowed as money and, although it may not have represented real wealth, the interest the banker collected did. The same is true of the "bookkeeping" entries made by today's banks that create demand deposits for the borrower. The banks are loaning money they don't have and by so doing are creating money.

  71. Comment

    @jerehough: I wasn't arguing whether or not banks have too much power. Most of your quotes revolve around how evil banks can be. Being famous doesn't make you an authority, either.

    @phreedomphan: I don't want to sound cynical, but do you think the Fed prints money, sets a reserve ratio and discovers an economy equal to (hard cash/reserve ratio) and says, 'oh my god i had no idea that would happen!' The Fed determines the amount of money in the system and they determine how much it is worth by setting the interest rate. (Although they don't have 100% control over its value.) Whether you call it lending money or creating (and regrettably I have used both words in this forum), the banks aren't pulling money out of thin air. The money they lend was allocated ahead of time by the Fed. Banks make money two ways: interest charged on loans and fees.

    One thing: I agree that in the middle ages merchants that lent more than they had were in fact creating money. This is because they were NOT in a fractional reserve system!

    And to be clear, I'm not arguing that banks aren't evil. I'm not saying they are, either. They might be :)

  72. Comment

    badhack, my understanding of the system relies on my memory, but as I recall, the Fed doesn't "allocate" money to the banks when it sets interest rates and reserve requirements, it gives them the license to create money. Contrary to the belief of some, it doesn't create it out of thin air. Thin air is more substantial. Today, it is created out of a far more ephemeral flash of electrons as balances are created and transferred to the accounts of the borrowers. You could call it "currentcy."

    In issuing receipts in excess of the gold they held, the bankers of the middle ages began the modern era of fractional reserve banking.

    I'm sure not all bankers are evil. The unfortunate thing about this world is that evil, having no moral compunction to play by rules of fairness, tends to dominate. The first thing I said when the Savings bank fiasco broke was, "Who's going to tell George Bailey that it's not such a wonderful life here in the United Pottervilles of America." Mr. Potter had finally destroyed the Savings and Loan.

  73. Comment

    rlbond86, phreedomphan,

    I don't think Helen is trying to make a point about how much money is created by private banks and other financial entities. 99.99% is a number often given to say, "almost all of it, but incalculable."

    Part of it depends on what definition of money is used. Based on Helen's general premise, she is referring to money in its broadest sense, which would mean, any form of purchasing power."

    Beyond the commercial banking mechanics, which more or less follow the Fed Reserve's booklet, "Modern Money Mechanics," there are other private financial institutions which have a wide range of methods of monetizing assets of almost any kind! Much of it is documented in private documents generated by the financial institution, and beyond the perusal rights of the public.

    The main point Helen is pressing is that the right to create and distribute money does not belong to private institutions, and she's calling for a national Federal Reserve. In the article she writes in her web site, she talks about "state banks." This would better than a single central entity, such as a National Fed Res. where the power to create money is de-centralized and given to government entities.

    I advocate that all citizens have their say in the creation of money, and I think this can be done through citizen ownership of bank or credit union, where each depositor has a voice and a vote.

  74. Comment

    Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" should be in every home in this country. If all Americans were aware of exactly how money is used to manipulate the politics of this entire planet for the last two centuries, the banking elite would find themselves the recipients of some well-deserved civil disobedience (or maybe worse). The billions (yes, billions) of people who have been both kept as exploited wage slaves and endured needless suffering simply because of the greed of these secretive individuals would demand appropriate justice. The people inherently have the power. Allegedly this country still operates on the principles it was founded on. If not, we're doomed and nothing really matters might as well just have a damn good time.

    The future is in your hands.

  75. Comment

    History has proven that Keynesian economics has been nothing but a trap, having driven the value of a dollar towards zero. Therefore, we should heed our Constitution and get the federal government out of the business of money creation, either directly or by proxy through the Federal Reserve.

    The market (inflation) has discounted the dollar just as though it were in fact based on gold and silver. M3 and the CPI track as though they were based on the same data. Let's be honest with ourselves and get back onto a hard-money system.

  76. Comment

    phbura: History has shown no such thing. History has proven that private creation of money is a trap, and a deadly one. Money creation is sovereign, and as such it is the prime business of legitimate and responsible governments. The misnamed Federal Reserve is NOT federal, and to say that the government creates money “by proxy” though the Fed Res is either totally ignorant or totally deceptive. It’s just not so. The government only BRORROWS money FROM the illegitimate and hybrid creature called the Federal Reserve, (who create it with their magic money machine) and needlessly indebts the taxpayers for both the principle and interest in doing so. The entire FRS scam has defrauded US taxpayers massive amounts of wealth, capital, and labor, and they are the ones who can least afford to pay. Phbura, your fundamentally flawed thinking about money arises from the false assumptions you seem to get from the Austrian School, who falsely believe gold is the basis for “sound” money. Certainly it is “sound” for those with the gold. It is unsound for everyone else, and time has proven that, over and over. Gold, silver, and other precious metals and gems may have limited usefulness for settling debts between nations or other economies, but commodity money is seriously flawed, unstable, subject to “cornering” or monopolizing, and so on.

    The entire banking system is one giant Ponzi scheme, siphoning money from the lowest levels of the lower and middle classes up to the wealthiest 1%, or tiny fraction of 1%, of the wealthiest people, corporations and families in the world. It should be recognized for the confidence game it is, and dealt with accordingly. The reality is that it is now too big too fail (TBTF) and too entrenched, for any solution but complete nationalization – which would only transform it into the institution most people have been led to believe it now is.

    Tekkmerc is 100% correct, as is npolimeni.

    The public credit union model, with some modifications, would best fit a small scale (community) banking model, and could be enlarged to the state, national and other levels. If run by local governments they could even create their own local currencies.

    Those who falsely contend that the constitution would prohibit this would abuse the intent and purpose of the constitution, and pervert it into an instrument to enslave, rather than liberate the people.

    All power (sovereignty) belongs to the people UNLESS specifically enumerated and delegated to legitimate, elected, representative governments.

  77. Comment

    "The public credit union model, with some modifications, would best fit a small scale (community) banking model, and could be enlarged to the state, national and other levels. If run by local governments they could even create their own local currencies."

    That is a VERY important distinction that I think highlights the true dilemma.

    While regulations have failed us, it is not the fundamental concept of private control of banking or even fractional reserve banking that are the culprits here, (In much the same way Communism is not directly responsible for the fall of the soviet union), but rather our specific implementation of it.

    The prime source of our poor implementation stems from a motivation of greed. It is our FOR PROFIT banking system that creates the incentives to chase short term profits, personal gains, and to masque objectives in order to defraud investors.

    Now as for creating the money supply, that responsibility is provided directly to congress and no one else. Remember the money supply is not a store of value - even at the individual level; but is a medium of standardized measure and contract. Assets and investments create value, cash does not.

    We should manage our money supply the same way it has always been managed throughout the history of our country prior to the 20th century. The governing body (in the early days it was states and municipalities) prints money in one block and then release it over time. After some time, the public clamors for more cash to facilitate (not stimulate) markets. The governing body is then contracted directly and proportionately on the behalf of the people to provide a specific amount of new bills and release them into circulation according to agreed upon principles.

    There is no institutionalized debt creation, there is no "quantitative easing," there are no market manipulations, there is no compounded interest payments to private industry, there is only simply a hard-line tangible currency that is a true approximation of relative value. Inflation is an irrelevant concept, yet leverage still exists through the fundamental functioning of markets and debt.

    Leverage ratios will naturally decrease from 1/10 or even 1/20 to 1/5 or 2/5 as people will genuinely be inclined to perceive cash as an asset. It will effectually turn our always changing standard of contract into a relatively stable, if temporary, store of value - ensuring the incentive to develop new and efficient models exists while mitigating a primary drive to greed. ("my money is always losing face value thru inflation so I must chase more profits to get ahead").

    Thoughts anyone? Am I completely off base?

  78. Comment

    badhack 10 hours ago said: "@jerehough: I wasn't arguing whether or not banks have too much power. Most of your quotes revolve around how evil banks can be."

    Wrong, badhack. The comments revolve around how evil private money creation IS! They argue about WHY the dominant banking system is evil, which is UNCHECKED POWER - ECONOMIC POWER! You have to examine the context and circumstances in which each quote was uttered to fully understand them, as I have. However I am not saying all bankers are evil. Few even realize the evil of the system, and that includes many at the top. It is the organizers of the system, and those who use their power to maintain it who are truly evil. They know precisely what they are doing. Precisely.

    badhack: "Being famous doesn't make you an authority, either." I guess Bush and Cheney proved that point beyond a shadow of a doubt, if it wasn't already obvious. Your comment misses the point, however. It isn't fame that gives a quote credibility; it is truth. And when numerous people with known attributes of intelligence, wisdom, character, integrity, or other admirable virtues and qualities make statements about something as important as money and banking it behooves honest men and women to take notice and examine the statement for its truth, or soundness.

    Here are a few more notable quotes:

    "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

    The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy spending power of the Government and the buying of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Governments, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The financing of al public enterprises, and the conduct of he Treasury will become mattes of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. ABRAHAM LINCOLN

    "The Federal Reserve (Bank) is one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers." ― Congressman Louis T. McFadden

    My agency in promoting the passage of the National Bank Act was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up the monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed; but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country. SALMON M. CHASE

    Under the Federal Reserve Act panics are scientifically created; the present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical problem. HON. CHARLES A. LINDBERGH SR., writing of the Panic of 1920

    The few who can understand the system (check, money and credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interest. -- ROTHSCHILD BROTHERS OF LONDON


    "ALL THE PERPLEXITIES, CONFUSION, AND DISTRESS IN AMERICA arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from DOWNRIGHT IGNORANCE of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." ― President John Adams

    I urge all honest souls that care out our planet to seek out the circumstances and causes of these thought-provoking quotes. Especially look at the reasoning behind the words of Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin.

    More will follow, as time permits.

  79. Comment

    Jerehough: I am no fan of the Fed; see my first post in this thread. I didn't rant, but I hope you get the idea.

    Our money supply has grown by about 25 times since 1913, and the value of the dollar is about 1/25 what it was at that time, thanks to the machinations of the Fed. As most of the growth in the money supply was by Federal borrowing, we are saddled with a monstrous debt on which we pay hundreds of billions of dollars per year in interest.

    Of course, if this money had been issued by the Treasury rather than the Fed, we would not have the debt and would be much better off. However, we would still have the inflation, which is a hidden form of taxation. Creation of money = inflation. Fiat currency, and hence Keynesian economics, do not work IMO. Whenever the US has strayed from gold and silver, the market has adjusted the value of the dollar accordingly.

    I am not a gold bug, and in fact don't own any. My only concern is that government not be given any power to "create money" because this is a fiction. All they can create is inflation, a dishonest form of taxation. Accordingly, I support our returning to a monetary standard that worked very well for many years. The monetary crises that led to the abandonment of the gold standard were mere ripples compared to what is shaping up at this time.

    How to resolve our present status of having been hoodwinked for a century is a huge nightmare. I am willing to entertain any solution that makes sense, including nationalizing the assets of the FRB system and its owners (the repeal provisions of the Federal Reserve Act be damned), or taking our lumps and either monetizing or repudiating the debt.

    With regard to banking generally and how we should operate if we ever emerge from this mess, the act of creating money via bookkeeping entry is legalized fraud, IMO.

    I believe that you and I are a lot closer on these matters than you think.

    Zauberer44: You made some great points about money being mainly a medium of exchange. That is the key to government's proper role in the system, of regulating the medium as a more or less impartial referee, not manipulating it for its own benefit.

  80. Comment


    While I can see that you have some understanding of the operation of the Fed, I think it’s important to clarify the issue of “hard money”, which confuses many well-meaning people and clouds the issue of what is money and what is not.

    The major justification given for having money “backed” by gold or silver is that these relatively rare metals hold their value and thus act as a brake on inflation; this idea was promoted by the hero of theoretical economists, Adam Smith. Unfortunately, Smith’s ideas, vigorously supported by bankers and their economist stooges, are based entirely on theory and do not rest on any verifiable data.

    Smith and his followers, even up to the modern day, held that gold and silver have intrinsic value. So how do we measure this value? Obviously we look to see what the metals would buy X years ago and compare that to its purchasing power now or Y years ago.

    There are numerous historical examples that prove just the opposite of the gold/hard money position, but two ought to suffice for now.

    Throughout the 16th century, as gold stolen (or obtained through slavery) from native Americans made its way to Europe, gold, measured against staple commodities, lost 80 percent of its value.

    Even more conclusive is the period from 1914 through 1919, when the US was firmly on a gold-backed currency, the value of gold coins (again, against commodity prices) dropped by 75 percent. Why? Probably because the European nations, already at war with each other, were pouring gold into US banks to buy our military supplies (Friedman and Schwartz, “A Monetary history of the United States”).

    But whatever the reasons, gold and/or silver are no more stable than any other form of commodity money. Just because they are commodities their values are variable. So rather than putting forth empty theories about gold, wouldn’t it be better to rely on the historical data?

    Regarding your argument that government-issued dollars lead to inflation: once again, facts are ignored in favor of Adam Smith, the most influential bank-whore of all time. You need to study the 17th and 18th century economies of the American colonies, especially the writings of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, to understand the enormous value of a fiat currency the amount of which is sensibly controlled. Even when such controls are infeasible – during our Revolutionary and Civil Wars – fiat money was able to support huge government expenditures for years. You can find plenty of evidence that the greenbacks loss of value in the end was caused by speculative manipulation (see Hamilton’s national bank) and/or counterfeiting by hostile governments (Great Britain in both cases).

    For heaven’s sake, even Hitler was able to support a tremendous military outlay for nearly six years on government-minted money (not that I would use him as an example for anything else).

    If you want I can supply you with plenty of references to back up these arguments. Can you do the same?

  81. Comment

    "You need to study the 17th and 18th century economies of the American colonies, especially the writings of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, to understand the enormous value of a fiat currency the amount of which is sensibly controlled."

    Precisely my point! These guys truly understood what it meant to manage the money supply by sensible metrics and not blind ideology. The most notable that Ben Franklin championed over and over again was after a phase of pent up demand by the taxpayers. It made the facilitation of policy and printing much easier when the population had taken an active role in it.

    I highly recommend reading either of those two men as they are undoubtedly two of the most articulate and well-read scholars and statesmen in Western history.

    Another interesting point is, upon analysis; our current so-called "progressive" system is actually extremely regressive - perhaps back to the point of 17th century Europe, where mercantilism was the law of the land and government representative of people was but a glimmer. Compare the banking systems of the Knights Templar or any other large trading interests such as Britain, Spain, or the East India companies (Take particular notice to the layout of the British EIC flag/logo).

    The only thing that has changed is the efficiency by which it exercises it's transactions.

  82. Comment

    I've read books by goldbugs, bi-metalists, greenbackers, and others. One thing they all have in common is that they all believe theirs is the perfect monetary system. All can point to some problems caused by the others. But from what I can see, it hasn't been the systems that failed and caused financial failures. It has been the manipulation of the system by those with the wit and power to do it. Personally, I like a monetary system based on pebbles and seashells.

    No matter what the basis of the monetary system is, unscrupulous schemers will find some way to manipulate it to their advantage and the majority of people won't pay enough attention to stop them. I think we need a system that will discourage monetary manipulation and that can only come in the system of law. Specifically, I favor extending the Code of Hammurabi to the crime of monetary manipulation.

    Most people think of the Code of Hammurabi as it is usually presented -- "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." But a far better summary would be "Shall be put to death." I think that should be the fate of those who commit the crime of massive manipulation of the monetary system. They shall be put to death. If nothing else, it might make these people think twice before committing the crime.

  83. Comment

    "TAKE BACK THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE BANKING INDUSTRY" that was created by the same power you want to give it back to.

    Yeah, I don't think that above sentence makes much sense, but this is exactly what most of you are saying here.

    This "Private Banking Industry" is nothing but a manifestation of the power of government. It is not a free enterprise, but a "central" authority incharge of money and credit. It is an economic central planner. It is Socialism, not Capitalism. The fact that banks are part of its operation and greatly benefit from it doesn't somehow refute this.

    To call it a "private" anything is dishonest and foolish. Your "private" bank is nothing but a government entity. It's not going to make a difference if it technically not part of the government. All of the Fed's powers are given to it by legislation.

    This apologetic argument for the government is so pathetic, that its origin can only be the clear anti-capitalistic mentality of Ellen Brown, despite the fact that she is unfamiliar with the free market economy, as can be obviously seen by her writings.

    Many here are simply falling victims to this nonesense.

  84. Comment

    dan, I don't think many people here will fall victim to your nonsense.

    Government today, and maybe even since before the Secessionary War of 1775, is a manifestation of the power of the bankers.

    Of course it's Socialism. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are just variant forms of the ultimate capitalist monopoly in which the State owns or controls everything and the capitalists own or control the State.

    Is Ellen Brown anti-capitalist? I am, but I'm pro free enterprise. I hate that capitalism is equated to free enterprise. I think a proper definition of a capitalist society or economy would be one dominated by capitalists who form the ruling class. A free enterprise system is dominated by the ingenuity of the people. Under that system there can be no ruling class because the innovator of today will be replaced by the innovator of tomorrow. In a free enterprise system there are no special laws to give immortality to corporations, unions, or any other form of collective so they cannot make themselves a permanent institution and come to dominate. All are free (and forced) to compete on their own for their lifetimes. I'm 67 years old and have never lived under a free enterprise system but would have loved to.

  85. Comment

    Dan521 is blinded by a lifetime of indoctrination that says government sits astride the power structure. Manifestly, this is nonsense.

    Even at the time of Jefferson and Abe Lincoln, there were fears of the power of bankers suborning government; fears expressed in recorded speeches.

    Since 1913, even Woodrow Wilson conceded that he had precipitated this very disaster.

    The global bankers collective is the most powerful entity on this planet, and a glance at the financial worth of just two of these members, Rockefeller with $10 trillion and Rothschilds with $100 trillion, should be enough for even the most naive to glance further than their own ideological noses. And it gets worse; sometime over the past three decades the Vatican threw in its lot, almost doubling this power. So too did the Anglican and Uniting Churches. Collectively, these disparate entities own the capital of the WB, IMF and BIS.

    Does anyone now consider their government to be paramount?

    If you require further indicators, since before he announced his candidacy, Obama's prime foreign affairs advisor has been Mr Biggy; or less affectionately known as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who created the Trilateral Commission (TR) in 1973, which is the largest and most far-reaching military-industrial intelligence monolith the world has known.

    And who owns both the TR and Mr Biggy, along with Chase Manhattan and ExxonMobil? Good old David Rockefeller. Every policy currently adopted by the US Government has been driven by Rockefeller and his close associate, Rupert Murdoch, et al.

    So, the only way Dan521 can be right is if all Americans get honest and accept that David Rockefeller is the American Government. But Rockefeller is merely nominal head of the banker alliance; he is bound by international hierarchy consensus. Zionists to the street wise.

    And how does one drag America back from the clutches of the megalomaniacal plutocrats? The first steps are (1) restore the financial system, exactly as recommended by Ellen Brown; (2) Restore and expand US tariffs; (3) Restore USA national sovereignty; (4) Dissolve NATO (it has nothing to do with American defense); (5) Replace the FDA with a Department that actually protects American citizen's health; (6) Close down the 170 major foreign bases and wars; (7) Relinquish apartheid Israel to its own aggressive devices; (8) Break up all media and industrial monopolies; (9) End media domination of elections; (10) Release all minor drug convictees and expunge their records. You will soon need their labor power.

    I can tell you with absolute assurance that with this constructive rediversion of national wealth, within three years the US will achieve almost full employment, and within five years it will enjoy the per capita prosperity of the 1950s, but more fairly spread.

    But first, listen to Ellen Brown; who, by the way, may or may not agree with what I have said. If she disagrees, go with Ellen.

    Phreedomphan… Well said!

    Tony Ryan

  86. Comment


    I expected that while I was writing this, others might answer first who would be less generous than me.

    Most people would dismiss you off-hand, as an irrational rant. However, I do understand your frustration, and hope I can help you with it. While we all would like to be precise in our language, the topic, economics, is so mired in contradictions and false opinions and ideas, that folks must try to understand despite the impreciseness of language, and the inaccurate use of words.

    Think of words as tags on object or ideas; now one can recognize that a wrong or inaccurate tag is being used to label something, but he also sees the ‘something’ and can understand what is being talked about. If we fix on terminology, and debate what words should be use, we’ll never achieve the greater goal of devising a method by which the control of money can be properly distributed, what I like to call “economic democracy.”

    You equate government and banking as not really “private.” My personal opinion is that government and the financial community is in bed together, and the latter essentially controls the former.

    But the net result, regardless of my opinion, is that the population has little say or control over the financial affairs of the nation, and consequently their personal financial affairs are always at risk.

    Let me focus on the objective of this forum: To achieve consensus on how to fix the economy. We’ll struggle with terminology, but if we stayed focused on the purpose, and we make inroads in the right direction, we will succeed.

    This is probably one of the best forums on economic, where we aren’t running up against platitudes of people who “know everything,” and argue their understanding against the understanding of others. From all posts I can clearly detect an above average understanding of what’s going on, albeit I do disagree with the terminology at times.

    Now if you came to contribute, I would suggest you also try to be clear with your terminology. What I get from you are the following points:

    1. Because the people in this forum refer to banking as "private" we are dishonest and foolish: We are dishonest and foolish for using “private” in a way you don’t agree.

    2. That referring to suggesting government take over money creation is an apologetic argument and it is so pathetic. We

    3. That Ellen Brown is clearly anti-capitalistic mentality, and that she is unfamiliar with the free market economy. Ellen’s writings deal directly with the mechanisms of money creation and distribution; not with the political ideologies of capitalism or free markets, terms which have been used mostly to discredit people when they can’t make rational points to deal with actual issues.

    4. Many here are simply victims to “this” nonsense.

    In your 4 points you use adjectives and other words which are simple attacks to the people in this forum, and provided no constructive information to suggest you have some truth to impart.

    The solution is obvious, and I’ll leave it up to you to decide what to do. Future comments of that type will most likely simply be ignored at best.

  87. Comment

    To all:

    While I have enjoyed the comments and analysis of many of you, I simply cannot abide the repetitive and tedious racist bigotry of those who cannot even admit they are racist bigots.

    Further, these same people spout cliched and ignorant nonsense in a forum which is dedicated to discussion of a serious subject: How can we dismantle a monetary system that robs every working person of their labor and even, recently, of their life savings?

    In any case, my tolerance has been exceeded. Perhaps I'll see this bright crew in a different location.

  88. Comment

    Gosh, Aherodias, I didn't spot that. Which commenter was the racist bigot?

  89. Comment

    Thanks, Tony. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, with these exceptions.

    My first step would be to "kill the Constitution." Put an end to the "living" Constitution concept that permits reinterpretation at the whim of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. End "constitutionality" de Jour.

    "The only good constitution is a dead constitution." Resurrect the "dead" Constitution that meant what it said and what was intended. Amend it to repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. Do that and many of your other ideas will fall into place automatically.

    I do disagree with your fifth suggestion. I know of nothing in the "dead" Constitution that permits federal involvement in health care. Most of what it does should be handled by the States if at all. I find federal meddling with our health to be unhealthy for our liberty, State sovereignty, and probably for our health.

    Well, I clicked "Post Comment" and nothing happened. Just as well. I meant to add this.

    Take a look at my blogs if you get chance, Tony, and let me know what you think.


  90. Comment

    Fascinating! I'd heard google was a part of the mob that runs America and I just received proof. Google has flagged my lostliberty blog as spam. Nobody, including me, can view it. Nothing like this ever happened before I started posting here. I guess the Fedstapo has ordered it shutdown. No doubt having referenced it here has gotten me on the "Enemies of the State" list if I wasn't already on it. Maybe that's what this whole site is about.

  91. Comment

    Well, within less than an hour of my posting this and within minutes of my naming google as an enemy in its coffee shop, my lostliberty blog is back up. That may have nothing to do with those posts. I did request a "review" but google said it would be reviewed within 2 days. Maybe they didn't have many requests because mine was the only one flagged.

  92. Comment

    I respect your right to your opinions phreedomphan, but you've gone right off the deep end here.

    There is no "one way" to interpret any document. Like any philosophical doctrine things are subject to change including revelations about flaws or errors in said doctrine.

  93. Comment

    That's no problem, badhack. I swim best in the deep end.

    That may be true to a limited extent, but when it comes to preserving what little liberty we have left or to restoring that which we've lost, I'll go with the interpretations of those who were responsible for the bill of rights.

    Too, I don't see what is so "philosophical" about the Constitution. Maybe you can come up with a "philosophical" perversion to make words mean the opposite of what they say, but it's still a perversion.

    How about this, badhack. I believe that the Constitution as reported out of the Convention was a blueprint for tyranny of the wealthy class. Only the alertness and wisdom of such as Jefferson, Methacton Smith, and Richard Henry Lee forced the inclusion of the Bill of Rights that preserved a bit of liberty for a time. "Philosophical" distortions have twisted many of those to mean other than what they expressly say.

    There have been "philosophers" who would not hesitate to wipe out half the human race to give the other half more room to live. I'll take a doer over a philosopher any day.

  94. Comment

    What is really needed is a complete modern revision of our constitution, or some kind of constitutional convention made of of the kinds of superior statesmen, philosophers, that wrote our present constitution. That's what is needed. The question is how to achieve it.

    Garnering support by suggesting that we "kill the constitution" is hardly going to be effective. "Modernizing the constitution" might be a better approach. Or rethinking the constitution. But there are so many problems and hurdles. State and county constitutions and charters need to be "updated" as well.

    But the key is that all revisions should be to strengthen and reaffirm the essential sovereignty of the citizen, and that all powers of governments at all levels must be specifically delegated and enumerated. This is the essential reorientation that is needed.

    I suspect that the "establishment" or economic and political "powers that be" would do their best to usurp that purpose and bend it to its own greedy self-interests. So built-in protections would be needed, in order to prevent that from happening.

    I like the elective council model for achieving this. Each citizen would gather in groups of ten and elect the person deemed most capable of representing them, and then those who are elected would gather in a similar group of 10 and do likewise, and on up the line, until a committee of about 100 or so was elected to come up with a document the people could vote for or against.

    On difficult issues or articles and clauses they could get instant feedback polls from their memberships, something the original founders could not do for months, and imperfectly even then.

    They would stay on that job as long as it takes. If it takes too long, lock them up until they come up with a draft. They should all be thoroughly conversant with the most difficult and thorny issues of the times the original constitution was written, including the mistrust of democracy, the interests of the ruling aristocracies, and the banking interests. Debating these issues in the light of present day knowledge and information should be the most interesting debate ever.

    The ideals and philosophies of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Madison, Adams, and other giants of that time should be woven into the conditions that exist today, and the goals we want to achieve, i.e., better representation, a more level economic playing field, universal education and healthcare, more equitable distribution of the earth's resources, humane population controls, more freedoms of choice, arms reductions, WMD eliminations, equitable treaties, FAIR trade agreements, rather than FREE trade, which is a road to serfdom, DE-centralization of government services, de-centralization of economic power, breaking up of all cartels, syndicates and "Too Big to Fail" enterprises, real anti-trust laws with teeth in them, and so on.

    Can it be done? Probably not. And that's a shame, as the altenative is to rebuild our current civilization from the wreckage of the old, and that will take a long, long time and much blood and treasure.

    The system as it now stands is unsustainable. It cannot continue. Collapse is imminent. We can either fix what we now have or watch it go down in flames and a new, centralized, totalitarian, worldwide economic power arise in its place with the international central bankers at the helm.

    The good part is we have a choice....

    For now.

  95. Comment

    The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

    Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson

  96. Comment


    Since your post comes immediately after mine, I wonder if anything I said triggered your tantrum to pick up your marbles, and run off...

    You've made some very good comments, all of which is valuable contribution to the thinking process, so I don't know why you would have such a reaction, as I see no connection to anything you have said before.

  97. Comment

    Everybody here clearly understands that, no matter how brilliant the proposed solutions, they imply that the government has to implement them. Everyone is equally aware that the government and the financial community are in effect together for the benefit of the latter, and will do nothing to reduce the power of the money changers.

    Therefore, the only way to implement any changes would require direct action by people.

    Now I've brought up the "credit union" model, which with modifications can be made to work. I'm not going into detail here, or present a more complete package without first having an idea of others' ideas on implementation. So there are several questions I like to pose here:

    1. Can you talk about how to implement such a shift?

    2. Such a change must happen quickly, thus require a team of some hundreds of people working on it in every state. Where are those people?

    3. What other ways of implementation can take place, if not through CU's?

  98. Comment

    aherodias.1 Your comments have been excellent. Other than dan521, who appears to be intellectually challenged, there haven't been too many really racist or bigoted entries here, at least in this thread.

    You are welcome to join in the reform discussions at Ellen Brown's blog or forum anytime.

    You can find them here:

    Jere L Hough

    Kansas City

  99. Comment


    Totally agreed. Have you heard of the "Common Good Banks"? Ithica Hours?

    What you are talking about is something I recently started on Ellen Brown's website. (She is the author of this petition, and the book, "Web of Debt")

    We have a money reform forum with 3 main subforums: The Problems; The Proposed Solutions; and IMPLEMENTATION: Proposed means of accomplishment. It is fairly embryonic right now, but the people on this thread *who are interested in money reforms* would all be welcome there.

    Cut and paste this url:

    I've been thinking of the credit union model for some time now, and how it could be modified to create money for local economies. Please join us!

    Jere L Hough

  100. Comment

    npolimeni :

    Not at all. It seems I owe everyone in this thread an apology - I conflated some racist views I found on a different threat - put it down to old age and disintegrating brain cells.

    While I don't necessarily agree with all of your analysis, I believe you have thought considerably about the money and banking issue.

    In addition, I appreciate that you are coming forth with solutions. I should add that I belong to a group in Tucson that is designing a local currency. I personally like the approach taken by 4th Corner Exchange (, but we are wrestling with the issue of how to combine a scrip issue with a ledger system.

    Maybe I will get back on line, as well as participate in the forum recommended by Jere Hough.

    Once again: I am sorry for my error! This has been one of the most enlightened discussions I have found on the web.

  101. Comment

    -What is really needed is a complete modern revision of our constitution, or some kind of constitutional convention made of of the kinds of superior statesmen, philosophers, that wrote our present constitution. That's what is needed. The question is how to achieve it -jerehough

    He knows full well it can't be.

    Now I understand his objection to my idea. He doesn't want to restore the Constitution. He wants to play along with those who have been perverting it. They have for years been calling for a convention to write a new constitution. They would love nothing more than to make legal their crimes of the past century. I have to conclude jerehough is no “patriot”. He is no American. Much of what he concludes we need is European.

    Some who voted against my idea were willing to man up and admit they'd made a mistake, but he wasn't. He still wants to make it look like it was my fault that he was too lazy to read it or lacked the guts to want to tear it apart. He still cowers behind “kill the constitution” taken out of context.

    Now he shows his true colors. He doesn't want to restore the Constitution. He wants to “modernize” it. That's the mantra of those trying to destroy Constitutional government. I can't emphasize enough that the Constitution was not intended to govern times or conditions. Granted, both change, but the Constitution was meant to govern men, and men don't change.

    Now where have I heard this business of “updating” State and county constitutions or similar words before. Oh, yes. It was Congressman Henry Reuss, one of the leading sponsors of “Revenue-Sharing,” a federal scheme to destroy our State and local governments. He wrote a book by that name and made it clear in his book that "Revenue-Sharing" should be used as "an incentive" to states to "modernize" their local governments. Reuss includes mandatory State constitutional changes to facilitate those changes.

    I don't care how complex, simple, or “democratic” he makes the selection of those who make up the delegates to his proposed convention. Realism forces us to conclude that those who wield the power over the government now will wield the power over such a convention and its outcome. Anyone who suggest otherwise is either naïve or a shill. Let's not forget that the first "Constitutional Convention" was only supposed to revise the Articles of Confederation.

    Frankly, when such a person masks his schemes with an invocation of the spirits of the founders of American liberty, I can only conclude he or she is a wolf in Jeffersonian clothing.

    It's hard to come up with logical arguments against many of jerehough's rants. They are so absurd as to defy logic. The intent of some are, however, quite clear. He talks of weaving the ideals and philosophies of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Madison, Adams, and other "giants of that time" into today's conditions. But many of the goals he suggests indicate that what he really means is to weave them into the ideals and philosophies of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. When the Fabian boot stands on the face of mankind forever as predicted by Orwell, you can bet jerehough doesn't picture his face under the boot. He pictures the boot on his foot.

    He finishes his post with high sounding rhetoric denouncing tyranny of the bankers, but there is no substance. He offers what amounts almost to an ultimatum. Follow his lead or face economic ruin. The ruin is on us now and it isn't because we need a new constitution—it's because we didn't follow the old one.

    Unlike jerehough, I don't pretend my words are those of the gods. I only ask one thing of readers and posters here. Before you accept his ideas or make a final judgment on my idea of killing the modern concept of a “living” Constitution and restoring our Constitution, as written and intended, to the supreme law of the land, please read the Regionalism – Death of the American System of Government post in my lostliberty blog. The destruction of our States and local governments has been planned since the early part of the last century. If you have time or can get back to it later, read the New World Order – Death of America post in that same blog. You'll find that much of what is going on globally has been planned since before our entry into WWII. If you want to know who some of the people perpetrating all of this are, take a look at my americasenemies blog. Some of this is readily available on the internet and you probably know it already, but some is not.


    18th Century Liberal

    21st Century Reactionary

  102. Comment

    Yes, Jere, I'm registered with that forum, and you would recognize me as "boldhawk."

    I am familiar with Ithica hours, and with HourMoney. And I support the effort and ideology, but I don't live in Ithica! This concept has been around for some 30 years, as applied here. The "HOUR" is a significant improvement because it establishes a value base, and prevents potential scamming which has in fact happened with such exchanges before, where it was easy for management to inflate their currency. Some were forced to close down because of public uproars.

    Nevertheless, the Ithaca Hours is a good stop gap. I didn't find any information about the Ithaca hour money supply, nor did I find any information on how the money supply is increased, and maintained to where it will not inflate. That would be a concern.

    The Hour provides a basic unit of value for products, so even in trading, one has a rule of thumb that provides understanding. I include this unit of value in my proposals, and it plays a greater role.

    The common good banks are a good idea but their structure remains as present banks, and not much has been said in their site about "stock holders." Also promising a return that is not directly related to productivity is same old same old. It remains a bank as banks are, albeit it's profits are distributed to schools, etc.

    Taking up your suggestions for a implementation of change, I think the "elective council" has merit.

    The issue I see with implementation is:

    a) A national political solution is not accessible or even feasible short term, (two to three years) as the financial community will block it at all cost; and their people also run the financial strings in government and a good portion of congress, so all that would happen, if at all, ten years down the line, we'll end up with watered down stuff like TARP and ARRA. (the bailout and the stimulus packages).

    b) political changes are more feasible on a state by state basis; but this will be a struggle of years.

    c) The only avenue I see is using existing law to move directly into system, such as credit unions, at the present. Even if this gets off the ground under a plan I contemplate or combination of mine and other plans, there will be blood in the streets as the banking apparatus struggles to retain its power. So even making the moves subtly, and without much fanfare, there will be a point where it would all have to be very public, as which time, much should be in place, so the remainder of the battle can be won decisively.

    After that is accomplish, I see all other social problems miraculously begin to resolve in a matter of a few years, including the constitution, election law, and so on.

  103. Comment

    npolimeni, Great comments. I'll try to add more tomorrow. I am in accord with your thinking as expressed here.

    I am thinking the Ithica Hours concept combined with the credit union concept and credit/debit card concept would be a great idea, if it were a non-profit community-based program.

    But more on this later.

    (I regret and apologize for the very recent deterioration in the level of dialogue here. Some people with potential and intelligence have some growing up to do. There are consequences for public slander, and that has definitely occurred here. It's a shame the dialogue dropped off so precipitously. )

  104. Comment


    An Article V Convention will simply NOT happen! Period. Why? I belong to "Friends of Article V convention," which is trying for help get congress to comply with the letter of the Law in Article V. The requirements have been fulfilled many times over for years--about 30 years, but Congress has ignored it. This goes to my earlier comments that there is no political solutions to the problems of this nation, through standard means.

    The rest of your comments, which are personal statements characterizing and labeling Jerehough are problematic, as they don't add clarity to the discussion, and tend to be inflammatory.

    Labeling someone not-patriot or an not-American or asserting "we now see their true color, provide no information about the reality, and only show your anger, frustration. Forums, such as this one, can be used to persuade others with reasonable information to embrace our ideas. If one can't persuade with reasonable arguments, it has less to do with the reader than with the writer.

  105. Comment

    As Tip O'Neill said: "all politics is local" which is why "there is no political solution to the problems of this nation." This implies that there should be no political parties at the federal level, which was the case under the Articles of Confederation, which made State legislatures appoint & fund their congressional delegations.

  106. Comment

    I agree with what npolimeni said.

    The clearest example of un-American behavior I can envision is to label someone "un-American". In fact, such divisive and polarizing accusations only play into the money-master's plans to "divide and conquer". Chaos is the name of their game.

    We, the people of America, must take back our right to create interest-free money in ways that are stable: neither inflationary nor deflationary.

    Ellen Brown's masterpiece, "Web of Debt", shows us both the need and the way to do that. It's what this proposal is about.

    Please vote for it. Then join in the discussions of alternative money systems and money reform at:



  107. Comment

    Support the audit the Fed bill in congress. It is H.R 1207 I believe. Ron Paul has some 170 co-sponsors already. Call your congressman or write and get this bill passed.

  108. Comment

    What do you think the chances of this passing are...with banks being some of the biggest donors in washington? We need public financing of campaigns. None of this other stuff happens without it.



    We must have public financing of campaigns. I know you think you don't want to pay for it...but you already ARE!

    You pay hundreds and thousands of times what you would if the politicians actually answered to you and not greedy corporate criminals. You pay thousands of times more in a CORRUPTION SURCHARGE!


    Every no bid contract, every unpaid royalty on an oil lease, every blocked piece of legislation, every blocked investigation, every effort to get healthcare for all, every blocked attempt for a living wage, every needless nuclear warhead that will never be used, every mountaintop removal mining permit OK’d, every case of cancer caused by lax environmental rules or enforcement, every prison built instead of a school...YOU PAY AND PAY AND PAY!

    And to add insult to injury, where do corporations get the money they give politicians in order to insure they can roll right over you whenever they want? FROM YOU! The cost of these payoffs is passed on to YOU the consumer!


    Whatever you think is the most important issue facing the country…forget about it. It’s going to be decided in favor of those in power. It will be watered down in favor of those who finance campaigns and control corporate media sources.

    You think the health care debate is going to come out in your favor or Pfizer’s? You think we are really going to cut military spending when more than half of the military budget for the entire world is being lavished on some of the biggest campaign contributors there are? How about Bank reform? Wall Street? Big Pharma? Iraq? The environment? Just exactly how do you see any of that working out in your favor in our current system?

    Our system is broken. Our government does not work for the people. It works for – or in fear of – people who can spend a lot of money, access a lot of media, or have a lot of power in society.


    What people don’t understand is that it is not necessary to buy off the whole government in order for corporate, big money interests to get its way…every time. You merely need to control either the moderates and/or the committee heads in order to assure that whatever compromise is reached it will ALWAYS benefit BIG MONEY!

    In Congress, you have partisans on either side, in safe districts, with entrenched interests who won’t compromise and are at no risk of being voted out.

    Then you have the folks in the purple districts. They could get the ax anytime. Their elections could come down to which candidate has a few thousand more to spend. If Big Money goes their way they stay, if it goes to their opponent they are out.

    These are the people you count on to forge the compromise between the two extremes and these are the very people who are most vulnerable to big money coming in hard and heavy against them.


    The current system assures that any compromise between the partisan extremes will be concluded in favor of big money. Even the most conscientious moderate politician in a contested state MUST cater to big money or they will not stay in congress.


    Do you wonder what has happened to democrats in congress over the last 8 years…the spinelessness and cowardice evidenced by these people?

    This is the result of what happens to an organization over time when anyone who fights big money gets weeded out…even if it’s only one or two per election. Eventually you are left with …well, what we have now…a bunch of corporate lap dogs.

  109. Comment


    The jere guy is just a bag. Check his signature on his forum. He claims to be a "Jeffersonian" but uses a fake quote as his signature (to impress the ignorant). If his signature is fake, what is he ?

    Try to post on his forum, he won't let you, especially if you call his bluff.

    Of course he does not want real solution to the problem of the dead constitution; he is trying to sell books, not solve problems.


    As for Miss Brown's ideas:

    You may NOT print up money for Obama's (or anyone else's) stimulus project, or any other socialist project, like the bright idea she suggested to Arnold for financing California's welfare payroll.

    Printed up money may only be used to finance useful projects such as roads, bridges, buildings; by spending it into circulation to pay for construction costs.

    What other programs does Ms. Brown think are in desperate need of funding ?

    "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof" meant to the people who wrote it gold, silver, copper coins,minted in government mint, and not paper printed up for socialist projects. So, if you want purely paper circulation, you need to get a new constitution which declares that Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to create money, print it on paper notes and dump it into circulation

    No need to buy any new finagled books from any new finagled book sellers, simply work up the courage to walk into the library and read. 90% of the 20th century books on conspiracy, the Fed, banking is regurgitation of other books, solely for the purpose of cashing in.


    " On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." --T.J. September 6, 1789.


    I am a great friend to the improvements of roads, canals, and schools. But I wish I could see some provision for the former as solid as that of the latter, -- something better than fog. The literary fund is a solid provision, unless lost in the impending bankruptcy. If the legislature would add to that a perpetual tax of a cent a head on the population of the State, it would set agoing at once, and forever maintain, a system of primary or ward schools, and an university where might be taught, in its highest degree, every branch of science useful in our time and country ; and it would rescue us from the tax of toryism, fanaticism, and indifferentism to their own State, which we now send our youth to bring from those of New England. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves ; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." --T.J. January 6, 1816.

  110. Comment

    Do you have the courage to walk into a law library and read? If so, pull U.S. Code Title 1 off the shelf, and after the Declaration of Independence, you'll see the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. In Article IX you'll read: "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to...borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States." Although the Constitution altered the Articles, it never repealed them, otherwise Article 7 wouldn't have made allowance for the Union to wear two hats: one for States ratifying the Constitution; another for States preferring to remain under the Articles. Thus, Ellen is right that Congress can create debt-free greenbacks, although not because it's an implied power under the Constitution, but an express power under the Articles, which it exercised soon after submitting them to the States for ratification, as if that was just a formality.

  111. Comment

    "emit bills on the credit" is NOT "the power to coin money"

    To those, who were there, "coining money" meant minting metal into coin.

    Greenbacks were 'bills on the credit': "the United States promise to pay to the bearer on demand" "payable by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States"

    "In such a nation as this, there is one and only one resource for loans sufficient to carry through the expenses of a Great War, namely fundable Treasury Notes fitted for circulation as money, and based upon adequate taxation." --E.G. Spaulding

    " 'An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes, and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floatinq debt of the United States.' "

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue on the credit of the United States one hundred and fifty millions of dollars of United States notes, not bearing interest, payable to bearer, at the Treasury of the United States, and of such denominations as he may deem expedient, not less than five dollars each." --approved by A. Lincoln, February 25, 1862.


    The constitution has been dead for a long time; and congress and president have been doing un-constitutional things for more than a century, so they may make interest free notes for circulation; but Ms Brown needs to get into the constitution a clause that says that congress has the power to create lawful money, and define its value, and determine its form -- if she wants to be constitutional; so PhreedomPhan is right, whatever is left of the 1789 constitution should be killed, and a new written.

    The old soviet block used government-created/issued/spent-into-circulation money, not based on any metal. The money was good, the management not so much...

    The other question is: on what should non-interest-bearing legal tender treasury notes be spent ? According to the constitution of 1789, only on general welfare may congress spend money. Handing greenbacks to California welfare receipients is hadrly 'general'

  112. Comment


    Certainly, if you want to give those seeking to legitimize their crimes of the past century or more the opportunity to do so, I can see why you would take jere's side.

    I see nothing wrong with my characterizing him as not an American in his philosophy. I admit I made a mistake earlier when I thought him too lazy to read. I thought that was his reason for giving a thumbs down to my idea of “killing” the living Constitution. He's now made it plain that he doesn't want to restore our Constitution, he wants to throw it out. I can accept that. I'm fine with people saying no to my ideas because they don't agree with them, I just have a problem when they say no because they're too lazy to read.

    You are right about the anger and frustration. I always get angry when I see socialists hiding behind the words of men like Jefferson to promote their European totalitarian ideas.

    Take a good look at what the man says. He wants to “weave” the ideals and philosophies of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. into conditions that exist today. He either forgets or ignores the fact that the Constitution wasn't meant to govern “conditions.” But, forgetting that, he lists goals that “we” want to achieve today. What are they? Better representation. Well, we had that with our State and local governments until those seeking to undermine them invoked the “living Constitution” to allow them to reduce the States to conquered provinces of the Washingtonian Empire. Why do we need a new constitution? He wants a more level playing field. Who can argue with that? But, again, restore the Constitution as it was written. The giant corporations that have so reduced our economic liberty could not exist. Sure jere knows that one of Jefferson's objections to the creation of Hamilton's National Bank was that he saw nothing in the Constitution to permit Congress to create such a corporation.

    Then he slides in his purely socialist ideas like universal education and healthcare. It's true that Jefferson believed in the former. It's the one fault I find with him. He was a brilliant man, but his forte was history. He knew his history. He could oppose a union of the power of the state with the power of the church because it would lead to tyranny over man, body and soul. He had plenty of history to show that. What he didn't have was a history of the combined powers of state and education to create a tyranny over man, body and mind. What is the mind? I see it essentially as a man's soul. Jefferson had 20/20 hindsight, but in this instance his foresight was lacking.

    If we are to have “univeral education,” whatever that means, let it be done at the State and local levels so that a variety of thought can flourish rather than at the federal level where only the official line is taught and all variant thoughts can be suppressed.

    How does jere's idea fit into those who want to “modernize” education by setting up government pre-Kindergarten? Let's not forget this idea that I've seen attributed to both Hitler and Mao: Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.

    I'd also like to know just how jere plans to work “more equitable distribution of the earth's resources” into a Constitution for these United States. I have seen the idea before. It was “woven” into a plan for a “New World Moral Order” in 1941/42. A plan for world government. The plan, with an accompanying map, is said to have been financed by Carnegie money.

    So we have jere “weaving” socialist ideas imported from England and Europe with globalist ideas that will undercut our national sovereignty. Was I unfair to say that jere is not an American? Maybe I should have added “in spirit.”

    jere then follows all with a smörgåsbord of ideas designed to get all cheering and deflect attention from his less American ideals. One that might escape the attention of most was his “DE-centralization of government services.” That's what Nixon said when he divided the country into ten administration regions. He was “decentralizing.” A great example of Orwellian double-speak.

    I think the idea that fascinates me most is that of “humane population controls.” I'd love to know what sort of Malthusian scheme he's hatching and how he intends to incorporate it into his new constitution. Maybe he'll have everyone form into groups of ten. Each group would select one person to go on to the next level and one person to be humanely euthanized. This would be repeated at each level. Or, maybe he has some other idea.

    I'd also like to know what the point would be. We're a long way from being overpopulated. Sure, if you live in the cities it may seem that way, but just drive out into the country, to the forrests, to the mountains, to the plains. We still have lots of “Lebensraum.” No need to set up “humane” extermination camps yet.

    Then after all his high sounding rhetoric, jere gives us an ultimatum. Accept and implement his ideas or see what we have “go down in flames.” In its place will be a “new”, centralized, totalitarian, worldwide economic power with the international central bankers at the helm. I don't know where jere has been all these years, but that's exactly what we have now. The “living Constitution” was the instrument used to draw us under it. Any wonder why these bankers would like to rewrite the Constitution to legalize their crimes before the people wake up? Does jere want us to think he's blind to all of this?

    I'm sorry if you don't like my “labeling” jere, but I'm not a poser. I'm not a dissembler. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I call a spade a spade.

  113. Comment

    Well put, yarmulka. I kind of had him pegged as a blowhard early on. He seemed to be rather intolerant toward those who challenged his pronouncements. Not letting you post on his forum if you call him sounds typical.

    I have to admit. After more thought, I may have been unjust in saying he is not an American. It is totally possible he doesn't know what he's saying. I've long believed that anyone who says that another who disagrees with him is “intellectually challenged” is intellectually challenged. Anyone who suggests that another has been drinking too many beers before posting and claiming it shows, is probably drunk as a skunk when he's posting. Maybe such a person doesn't mean what he says. Maybe he doesn't even know what he says.

    I do recall Jefferson saying debts should not be passed on from one generation to another, but I don't recall him saying that about the Constitution. I thought he had warned against those who would change its meaning through construction. Just as is being done with the “living” Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have provisions for amending it, so each generation can put its stamp on it if it wishes.

    You misunderstood the intent of my “Kill the Constitution.” I'm referring to killing the “living” Constitution concept, to restoring the Constitution to its word and spirit.

    I disagree with you on the same point I disagreed with jere. I don't want a complete rewrite. I have no illusions as to who would control the rewriting of a “new” constitution. Those who have been violating the Constitution all these years would use the rewrite to legalize all of their past crimes. Take any changes one amendment at a time to give people a chance to understand it and any who might oppose it time to organize and have their objections heard.

    Just a thought in passing. I don't believe the Constitution deals with term limits of Congressmen. All I could find was the provision for election every two years. If I'm right. If the Constitution does not deal with term limits for Congressmen, then I wonder if mAximo will have the courage to walk into Congress and tell all Congressmen who have served three or more years of the last six to get out. While the election every two years does not imply a two year limit, the Articles expressly limit a delegate to Congress to serving no more than 3 years in 6.

    Does anyone know if the Constitution expressly permits more than the 3 years in 6?

  114. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    Thomas Jefferson wrote to Samuel Kercheval in 1816:

    "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment . . . [L]aws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. . . . [A]s that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times. . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

  115. Comment

    Has it occurred to no one that the constitution is the hook upon which you hang.

    The US Constitution was replaced; and the inspired original, which stated that "All authority derives from the people" (-Thomas Paine) was done away with. Paine adopted America in the belief 'The Rights of Man' was to form the basis of the new Constitution. He and Americans were cheated.

    All elements that provided democratic rights were removed by the plutocrats. This is the very reason the amendments came into being... futilely as it happens.

    It also does not appear to have occurred to anyone that constitutions per se are (a) manifestly and universally unsuccessful, and (b)unnecessary.

    In fact, all constitutions verbosely duplicate three axioms:

    Equal Rights;

    Equal Opportunity; and

    Democracy (ie policy formulated by the electorate).

    If any of you want to demolish this I would suggest you devote some careful thought first; I have been challenged by experts and they failed.

    The key is application of equal opportunity. To be meaningful, it means every child must be conceived into a loving and nurturing family which, obviously, must be reasonably prosperous and fulfilled. There must be a reasonable standard of nutrition, health and education and an absence of crime. And do on.

    All these can be argued on purely economic grounds and ideology plays no part in this.

    This is, however, very bad news for lawyers and hierarchies. In a genuine democracy, the people control the definitions, identify issue priorities, and the mode of implementation of their policies.

    We will note that this bears no resemblance to the US, yet I am only talking about the lyrical definition of democracy provided by Abe at Gettysberg. Are Abe and I wrong and Maddison right?

  116. Comment

    Like most lawyers, Ellen will use terms beyond the literal sense or apply legal techniques of business contracts to a 'social contract'. Thus a State may "create money" to create credit rather than coin gold & silver; or force the central gov't to wear its other hat on a line-item basis, rather than as a whole. Article 7 of the Constitution is explicit that the central gov't must wear two hats for any State that wants to be a member of the Union under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. If any State repeals its ratification of the Constitution, and subsequently appoints anyone in its Senate delegation for more than 3 years in any 6 year term, I'll be happy to march into their Statehouse and tell their legislatures to repeal them, or file a writ of mandamus in the State Supreme Court if Puerto Rico becomes such a State in the meantime. If the Senators in question then refuse to obey such orders, then I'll be happy to go to Congress to tell them to get out. In any case, if a State kills the 'new' Constitution for the 'more perfect Union', it defaults back to its status under the old constitution: the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. Therefore, any such State loses its representation in the House, while winning back the right to appoint its delegation in the Senate without having to get other States to repeal the 17th amendment.

    However, after a power had been delegated to Congress under the Articles, Congress couldn't lose that power after the ratification of the Constitution, given that a major goal was to expand the power of central gov't. This intent was clearly expressed in Article 2 of the Draft Constitution. Therefore, Congress still has the express power to emit bills on the credit of the United States.

  117. Comment

    TonyRyan43: Well spoken and true. What we have to remember about the writing of the US Constitution and the Article of Confederation is that they were written by men who were divided over what kind of government our new nation was to have.

    Some of the founders were monarchist aristocrats, some were colonial landowners and slaveholders, some were industrialists and bankers, some were democratic republicans. They all wanted to form a new union of colonial states that was powerful enough to defend itself against foreign navies and armies. Most wanted the union to be not so powerful as to usurp the rights of the states and of the people themselves. Others wanted a new centrally run empire. Some wanted a money and banking system along the lines of the Bank of England model, and others wanted one along the Franklin - Jefferson colonial money system that England so wanted to destroy.

    The result was a paper document with high ideals and phrases and SOME checks and balances, but also left a few loopholes. We can liken it to modern software that seem functional and pretty but leaves beck doors open to hackers and cheaters.

    There were two HUGE back doors that were open to saboteurs of the new democratic republic:

    1) The power of the money and banking system.

    2) The power of control by unlimited corporate growth, especially of the press and media, and other news, education and informational sources.

    These two defects were seen by Jefferson, Franklin, and other Founders, but the potentials of corporate and banking abuse were not seem by and large by most Framers, and of those who knew clearly what they were doing, few were principled enough to take a stand against the money powers... even then.

    What we have needed for two hundred years with growing urgency is a closing of those loopholes, or "back doors" to unchecked money and corporate powers, and an undoing of the stranglehold they have over our informational and educational sources. We need open national debates and discussions on these vital issues.

    But the money powers won't let it happen. They have gained control over our congress to the degree that nothing can be done without their consent. They own and control the news and informational media. They attempt to control every election of any importance to them.

    Soon they will openly proclaim the new global fascist empire they have been building while hiding behind the curtain of secrecy.

    That is why this proposal of money reform is so important. Unless we can take back the money power from the private control it is now under, we have no hope of salvaging much of our Bill of Rights, if any. Those rights now exist mostly on paper, just as George W Bush stated: "Stop throwing that constitution in my face. It's only a G*ddammed piece of paper." That really is the mindset of the people we are up against.

    Vote FOR this proposal, and do not be deterred by the shallow attempts of some to hijack the purpose of this proposal and this discussion.

    This proposal can be found in Ellen Brown excellent book, "Web of Debt" Google it, and if you can't read the book, at least read the reviews, and her articles online. is a good starting point.

    My website is:


  118. Comment
    Bart Klein Ikink

    It is a great idea and Ellen has a good insight in money. The FED is a private company and will never work in the public interest. However ending the FED does not solve the problem. The crisis can only be solved if the root causes are recognised. These are usury (interest on money) and credit (the creation of money out of nothing).

    If someone brought a 1/10 oz gold coin to the bank in the year 1 AD, and the money remained there until the year 2000 AD, collecting a yearly interest of 4%, the amount of gold in the account would have been 3.6 * 10^31 kilograms of gold. This is 1.9 * 10^27 cubic metres of gold weighing 317 times the complete mass of the Earth. This example demonstrates that interest on money is unsustainable and leads to crisis.

    Credit and interest on money make it possible for an economy to grow above potential during a boom phase. In the boom phase investors add leverage using credit which further intensifies the boom, creating shortages of materials and labour resulting in rising prices. Interest on money entices banks to lend money to leveraged investors. Credit makes it possible to create money out of thin air, which enables the banks to fuel the boom. When the cycle turns into bust, investors start to deleverage, which intensifies the bust, creating surplusses of materials and labour resulting in falling prices. What most economists do not see, is that credit and interest on money are the root causes of economic booms and busts.

    It is possible to end the depression in a few months, to have constant economic growth at maximum potential without crisis, unemployment and government intervention. You can read more about it here:

  119. Comment

    Creation of credit out of nothing is a problem. Money isn't credit. The 1948 Winston Dictionary defines constitutional money as gold & silver coin. Thus, if you are not tendered money for a loan, then there arises no liability for a debt. As mentioned on the Treasury's website under differences between FRNs & US Notes, the law only makes FRNs legal tender for debts, and not for goods & services, e.g. the extension of credit out of thin air. The exponential growth of compound interest even at 4% is an argument against usury on money, but not on credit-out-of-nothing, as 4% of something backed by nothing is still nothing, even when compounded.

  120. Comment

    A number of myths have managed to creep into Web of Debt: "16th Amendment doesn't overrule Pollock", or the Pollock decision up till then "declaring general income tax unconstitutional"; or Ben Franklin as "the Father of Paper Money," when he at most was the Printer of it. Nobody of that era ever called him that. The cornerstone-layer of our 1st central bank, Robert Morris was given that title, at least for the US, otherwise the founder of the Banque General and the Mississippi Co, John Law. Instead, Franklin is on the $100 bill because he was a Mason admitted to the highest degrees, like Washington. Other personages on FRNs are those mocked by Masons, if not assassinated.

    Bubya was on the right track that the Constitution is a God-damned piece of paper: it requires one to swear an oath to it. The Jesus-freak Framers were prohibited by Jesus from doing so, which is why they made provision for an affirmation instead.

    The Framers who wanted to swear such an oath were Masons, not Jesus-freaks, intent on eventual institutional supremacy--if not "divine world gov't"--via Article 2 of its Draft, or as in notes of the secret debates envisioning a national gov't with supreme legislative, judicial and executive powers. A blind Daughter of the American Revolution, a descendant of Washington's freed slaves in possession of historic Masonic documents, did verify this publicly. Such Framers do not deserve to be called Founding Fathers. She implied that they were Founding Con-artists, due to the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to promote "con"fidence. Jack & Margy Flynn went so far as to call them "Founding Traitors". Such Framers also put in an international treaty loophole making anything to the contrary in the Constitution "notwithstanding" so that anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution, stabbed in the back all those who had died thinking that they were fighting for "Free & Independent States". This is akin to the treachery of Masonic oaths vis-a-vis one's family members.

  121. Comment

    "Bubya was on the right track that the Constitution is a God-damned piece of paper... Such Framers do not deserve to be called Founding Fathers.....Jack & Margy Flynn went so far as to call them "Founding Traitors"


    These are not statements made from a rational mind.

    It is a sad commentary on the state of of our nation, if not the world, when attempts to improve our government with public input websites like this are brazenly hijacked by all manner of extremists. Such people appear to either want to use this space for a "burning platform" to vent their misplaced rage against a misidentified "enemy", or they deliberately want to sidetrack all reasonable discussion of the issue at hand - in this case monetary reforms. These reforms could end the financial plunder and exploitation of the people of this nation, and the world.

    I have rarely seen such a degeneration in the quality of posts as I have seen here on this thread in the past few days. The nihilists, anarchists, and hate groups are having a field day, and this always comes at the expense of reason, moderation and as has been seen here, even sanity.

    As I look around the internet I see increasing signs of hatred, intolerance, fear, tension, anger, rage, and despair. This is exactly the kind of chaos those who are orchestrating the global financial fascism wish to engender is us. Why are we being so obliging?

    Why are we pointing the fingers of blame at anyone but the international banking syndicate? They are the ones who have usurped our government "of, by and for the people". They (Wall Street and the City of London financiers) are the ones who cause every major boom and bust cycle, and have done so for centuries. They are the ones that finance the campaigns for public office, who buy the representation that should rightfully go to the people. They are the ones who raid the public treasury to "socialize their losses" while maximizing their profits at public expense. They are the ones who demand the funding of the American Empire and military bases in over 180 foreign nations. They are the ones that financed and enabled the establishment of communism and socialism, not to mention the later fascist nations of Italy and Germany. They agitate and finance all the wars and revolutions, and have done so for over 300 years.

    It is as if they were pointing to the chains and keys, and commanding us to lock ourselves up. And we are actually doing it! The record and history is out there good people. Read Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", or Ellen Brown's Web of Debt" or Stephen Zarlenga's "The Lost Science of Money", or David C Korten's, "When Corporations Rule the World", "The Great Turning", or "The New Economy Agenda".

    If you want to know where to direct and positively channel your righteous indignation and growing injustice in our world, visit Ellen Brown's websites or mine and follow the suggested links and educational materials recommended:

    And please vote FOR the proposal to take money creation powers out of private hands.

  122. Comment

    "To talk about regularization of banks means either to betray complete ignorance, or to fool the simple folk with high sounding words... to control the delivery of bread, or in general, the production and distribution of goods, without controlling banking practices, is an absurdity" --Lenin ('Pravda,' May 29th-30th, 1917: 'The threatening catastrophe and boundless promises'. Collected Works [1964], vol. 25, p. 329)

    Delusion of grandeur:--

    "[i]It is a sad commentary on the state of of our nation, if not the world, when attempts to improve our government with public input websites like this are brazenly hijacked by all manner of extremists[/i]"

    this site just a dime a dozen, no different than the hunder other sites; nothing is solved or improved here or on other sites; buying your book won't do anything, either. when the founders of the united States wanted improved government, they opened fire .... not peddled books


    Ms Brown

    Jefferson was of the opinion that each generation should write a constitution for themselves, but that constitution would be written in stone, not on silly putty as the 'living constitution' advocates would want. The letter to Kerchival contains Jefferson's ideas regarding the reformation of Virginia's constitution

    Thomas Jefferson to James Medison, September 6, 1789 (the earth belongs to the living):--

    "On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."


    "An irresponsible body (chiefly self-constituted, and mainly dominated by professional office-seekers and office-holders) have usurped the election of President (for the nomination is the election, so far as the party is concerned) ; and always making it with a view to their own profit in the monopoly of office and plunder.

    "A sectional question now divides the Union ; arraying one-half against the other, becoming more exasperated daily--which already destroyed the benefits of the Union, and which, unless checked, will also destroy its form.

    "Confederate republics are short-lived--the shortest in the whole family of governments. Two diseases beset them--corrupt election of the chief magistrate, when elective ; sectional contention, when interest or ambition are at issue. Our confederacy is now laboring under both diseases : and the body of the people, now as always, remain unconscious of the danger--and even become instruments in the hands of their destroyers." --Senator Benton, 1850.

  123. Comment

    Statements like Bubya's or the Flynns precisely illustrate the irrational belief-systems of Freemasons & Jesus-freaks who dominated the Constitutional Convention. (There were no Jews, and few if any Catholics or Anglicans.) W/regard to Bubya's statement: since when do pieces of paper have damnable eternal souls? W/regard to the Flynn's: the Framers were only Revisionists, not founders since the Union was founded in 1781 at the earliest with ratification of the Articles, and at the latest in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris from the British perspective. The Constitution was explicit in perfecting an existing Union; continuing all existing engagements as if under the Articles. Thus, the Bank of North America was our 1st de facto central bank, a private bank "ordained" by Congress, and chartered by a few States. It did not catch on in all, and even had its charter in PA revoked for 2 years. It is forgotten, along with non-Freemasons, such as Robert Morris, our Superintendent of Finance who owned shares in its predecessor, and John Hanson, our 1st President authorised to wield the Great Seal of the United States, who signed the order ordaining the Bank of N.America. Instead, the irrational minds have replaced them in our time with high-degree Freemasons: Benjamin Franklin as the Father of our Paper Money, George Washington as our 1st President. The methods used to perpetuate such mythology is a classic case study in psychopathology, e.g. rewriting history by inventing hair-splitting terms that were not in use at the time: President of the Congress of the Confederation, etc.

  124. Comment

    Credit does become 'money' when the person(s) to whom it was given, goes out and starts purchasing, at which point, for example if the bank issued the credit (such as in revolving credit system), the used portion automatically becomes a loan.

    The difference between FRNs and US Notes in practice is not even considered. A creditor is obligated to accept either FRN's or US Notes against a debt or sellers of goods and services are obligated to accept either in purchase.

    I think, therefore, IMHO, loans or credit in practice are the same, except as mentioned above, as to the time credit becomes money.

    This speaks to the "debt as money" system. If we were to zero out the system, and start anew, a debt-based system has built-in problems, and too many to list here; but the most important is the fact that it is not sustainable mathematically.

    The other fact is that when somebody issues loans, credit, money, etc. they are granting the right to these folks who borrow, to place claim to anything in the economic system, i.e.: goods and services.

    Examine for example a imaginary small self sufficient community, with a bank that issues loans, and credit. Suddenly, the Mayor starts buying all kinds of assets in the community. It becomes obvious that he got a large loan from the bank, and this loan has not only inflated the money supply, but has given rights to someone to place claim to the resources of the community. Does this person have a right to those resources? Doesn't the rest of the community have a right to decide to whom they will grant credit (i.e.: claims against resources before anything has been produced to justify that credit or loan?

  125. Comment

    3 points to clarify that (constitutional) money isn't credit: 1. under the Constitution, there's no liability for a debt unless made in terms of gold & silver coin; 2. under federal law, FRNs are only legal tender for "debts, public charges, taxes & dues"; 3. acceptance of FRNs for goods & services is only compulsory under state law in those States having such laws, according to the Treasury:

    I'll let others compare & contrast between those 3, and determine the consequences.

  126. Comment
    Al Nagy

    I voted for this thread as I feel sick of hearing speeches about how the banks should be sorry and say "We will never do it again." Why can't the government do the same leveraging against banks, that they do to us? Loan more than you have, isn't that an isF? Shouldn't that be a fee back to the treasury? How about lending banks at 1.5%, then oops they didn't make a good loan, shouldn't they pay more for their capitol next time? Why not raise the rates to those bad banks? If they fail to hold the minium cash reserves easily checked by depositing a government check for the required amount and see if they cash it. Promise to give banks their requests for additional cash or insurance of depositor's receipts, then hold it for 5-7 days, of course, because the magnetic account info was ribbed off and bad to be manually entered. Make the everyday currency,. checks, cash, credit cards have a money czar warning like on pillow cases" Do not remove" but instead "Devaluing or otherwise using for illicit means i.e. loaning to risky opportunists, terrorists, smugglers, etc-will result in loss of all license to, and compulsory IRS auditing of all holdings of personal accountings of all shareholders." Oh yeah,I left out the one used so freely by a customer service rep of a bank. to me, the deposit is there, but using it before it posts costs you a $30 fee. Then ask the money hoarders "How's that working for you?" Sign me a concerned working stiff

  127. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    To managers of this forum: several people have written that they tried to vote but the thumbs up and thumbs down are now missing from this entry. Most entries still have them but this and a few others don't.

  128. Comment
    Steve Walker

    This idea should really be number one, along with a scientific based investigation into 911. I just showed a friend WTC 7 collapse and he said; "I've never seen that".

    Thats all it took, now he's seen the smoking gun and realizes something is wrong with the official story.

  129. Comment
    Steve Walker

    Hey Ellen,

    I bought your book and love it. I’m only about 100 pages into it. I’m a slow reader. Anyway, some friends of mine, my mom, and I bought your book. My name is Steve W. and I live in Encinitas. Have you seen the new KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno interview of Richard Gage AIA? Please Google it and watch. . He, along with 700 architects and engineers are convinced WTC 7 is a controlled demolition, take a look.

  130. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    Thanks Steve! Yes I've spoken at a conference with Richard Gage - totally compelling.

  131. Comment
    Steve Walker

    Hey Ellen, I work with Richard's ae911truth team. We just had him at the Encinitas Library with 200 plus attendees. Only one left believing the official story. Would you vote yes and you write a comment on my idea. Same category,about 53 positive votes, Title: scientific fact based investigation into 911?

    Peace, Steve W.

  132. Comment
    ellenhbrown ( Idea Submitter )

    Hi Steve, I'll do it! Ellen

  133. Comment

    Banks create money out of thin air. Please see the Fed Reserves 'Modern Money Mechanics' and the post on this very site at:

    Apropos this thread you DO have the power to create money, actually, that is the ONLY way that money is created, by the signature of a flesh and blood person and/or duping the 'faith and credit' of the US; ie, the "taxpayer," so called;ie, us!

    The US went bankrupt in 1933 and there is no money (of substance) as such, only money of account and debt instruments better known as Federal Reserve Notes. Amazing the great majority of the US population is ingorant of how their "economy" works. They have been so thoroughly duped that I am certain those reading these words will experience major cognitive dissonance!

    The banks do not lend you anything, you create "the money" w/ your signature and they then charge you a fee of your own principal and interest on the money you just created. This is no joke, please Google: HJR 192, speech by James Trafficant, Modern Money Mechanics and of course see:

    Everything is prepaid because they not only confiscated the gold and silver (consitutional money) but everything (and I mean...) they own the land, your labor, your house, your car, etc, etc. The only remedy they provided is House Joint Resolution 192 which in part states the govt will "discharge all debts public and private, dollar per dollar.." Yes, you read it correctly. They will pay for your debts because they are ALREADY paid by you!

    There is a good site to begin your research:

    By the way, please understand the constitution is operative but extremely limited as we mostly operate under Trust law. For example, the Social Security Trust makes us all FIDUCIARIES of an irrevocable trust. That is why no one can get out of paying taxes.

    Well, too much to post in one email but I think getting the correct paradigm is key...RESEARCH while we still ave the internet!

  134. Comment

    Ellen Brown is great, isn't she? Thanks to her and her masterfully written book, The Web of Debt, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the bankers have been quietly and secretively executing the greatest robbery in the history of mankind, continuously for nearly a century.

    Down with these blood-sucking parasites! Finally, we are beginning to have a revelation in this country about the monkey business the fake Federal Reserve has been up to for nearly a century in this country. NO MORE! It needs to end and end soon. Contact your Representative and have them co-sponsor (key word is co-sponsor) House Bill HR1207 – Audit the (phony) Federal Reserve. The Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.

    Once this thing goes to the Senate, then pester the heck out of your Senator to vote HR1207 into LAW. And be crystal clear to your Senator - No watering down the bill or you're out of the Senate the next election, guaranteed!

    Let’s kick some banker as*.

  135. Comment
    Al Nagy

    Here is an anagoly of my opinion:

    This makes perfect sense:


    > It is a slow day in the small Texas town of Madisonville .


    > It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted.


    > Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.


    > On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through

    > town.


    > He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar

    > bill on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order

    > to pick one to spend the night.


    > As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the

    > hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.


    > The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to

    > the pig farmer.


    > The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to the

    > supplier of feed and fuel.


    > The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to

    > the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately

    > had to offer her "services" on credit.


    > The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the

    > hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she

    > brought clients to that establishment.


    > The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the

    > rich traveler will not suspect anything.


    > At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs,

    > after inspecting the rooms.


    > He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not

    > satisfactory...... Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves

    > town.


    > No one earned anything.


    > However the whole town is now out of debt, and looks to the future with

    > a lot of optimism.


    > That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is

    > conducting business today.

  136. Comment

    Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln's Economic Advisor points out that the US economy was booming in 1865. At the end of the worst war the US has ever been involved in. More dead than any other war. A civil war. How could the economy be booming? Greenbacks... Cash that's how. Credit is a monetary predator, a cash carnivore. It devours the cash needed to support a robust economy. In 1865 we had a 50/50 cash/credit ratio. We now have a 97% credit and 3% cash based money supply. Cash is a sound economic unit of transaction. Pure buying power with no strings attached. As long as it is exchanged for something of value it retains it's value. There is nothing credit can do that cash or electronic currency can't.....except of course be used to forge the shackles of economic slavery.....debt. Substitue cash/currency for credit-based-money and watch our economy take off.

  137. Comment


    An intriguing and sober assessment though don't overlook the significance of pent up demand for services in this same time period. You had a country at war with itself which virtually shut off all industry. After years of scarcity and destruction, a desire for production was imminent. A stable currency was instrumental in orchestrating an economic boom, though it was merely the chosen catalyst. I would argue that roughly the same results would have occurred, though perhaps not as drastic or as measurable due to a reliance on barter and private party arbitration rather than currency as a standard medium of contract.

    you are certainly right though, often credit and debt serve little productive purpose and actually prevent efficiency when utilized at such a severe disproportion as we have now. Not to say that credit is worthless, but it can be and currently is weaponized to serve the selfish desires of the credit issuers and not the general welfare of the overall community.

    Idiosyncrasies of individual economies aside, those states (both tangible and idealistic) which provide incentive to savings and conservation while still restricting interest on debt leveraging realize the benefits of less volatile and more accountable capital markets. In our specific situation, a natural balance can be achieved without cumbersome legislation - though it will require the return of a significant proportion of economic and political power from the suppliers to the demand-driving citizenry.

    We all know exactly what needs to be done, and how to do it.

    So why havn't we pulled the trigger?

  138. Comment


    A government of the masses.

    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

    Results in mobocracy.

    Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

    Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

    A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.


    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

    A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

    an executive and

    a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

    a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

    certain inherent individual rights.

    Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

    Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

    A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

    Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:


    a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.

    b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences


    a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

    b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

    Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

    The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.

    Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

    Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

  139. Comment

    The above is sheer lunacy.

    I don't guess you've ever heard of a "Constitutional Democratic Republic", huh? From the pain of reading the above, I guess you haven't heard much of anything except from those who have control of your mind.

    A Democracy that is governed by constitutions and laws is not a "mobocracy".

    If you are really so into accurate terminology, why do you try to deceive people into thinking there is some difference between a "Righteous Republic" and a "Theocracy"? Could it because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE?

    I urge people to vote FOR this most important issue of taking back the control over our money.

  140. Comment

    Just to correct the alarming miscomprehensions of 'freedom fighter 4 the planet':

    Every day, we hear references to democracy: parliamentary democracy, Westminster democracy, Australian democracy, representational democracy, and democratic majorities. And, of course, we have America’s special legacy to the burning nations it recently invaded and occupied… George Bush’s freedom and democracy; now Obama's.

    These phrases are calculated misrepresentations; what we should more accurately describe as products of public relations, propaganda, indoctrination, misinformation or brainwashing; depending upon preferred vocabulary. What we must become reconciled to is that this word, in the context of contemporary politics, has nothing to do with genuine democracy.

    As for the poor Australians, one would not be in cerebral overload if one wondered about the meaning of Kevin Rudd’s cherished Australian democracy, while he routinely overrules 80% of Australians in virtually every issue, while obsequiously positioning himself to be the President of China’s new Australian colony.

    This is the same “democracy” that the US has trumpeted loudly while it plundered the resources of the 43 sovereign nations that it militarily invaded since 1946; overthrowing governments supported by the overwhelming majority of inhabitants.

    Once examined more closely, it is not difficult to conclude that this version of ‘democracy’ is not compulsively desirable; a conclusion which has led many of the world’s youth to declare that “democracy is not what it’s cracked up to be”. Of course, what they disparage is not democracy at all. They are justly criticizing various forms of representationalism, in which people are ruled by elected politicians, or by oligarchies or dictators.

    What all of this demonstrates is the devastating impact of media-borne propaganda.

    The more logical conclusion; that politicians who are otherwise noted for their lies, distortions, oppression, hegemony, torture and genocides, would be most unlikely to favour Government of the people, by the people and for the people, somehow does not occur to us.

    Although popular media and government-owned TV stations never discuss this, the truth is that the source of this anti-democracy propaganda is highly organized and extremely well resourced; a fact now recognised on thousands of Internet sites; the only truly free media.

    This powerful source of misinformation is a loose consortium of international bankers, led by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families; and by the seven global media owning families and corporations, particularly Warner, MGM, Time-Life, Disney and Rupert Murdoch. These represent an even more camouflaged elite who are united in the belief that they are born to rule the world. This is allied to the ancient aristocracy, who were largely forced underground by the French, American and European Revolutions and by subsequent universal rejection of inherited political and economic power. By 1850, with the Rothschild link with America’s plutocracy forged, this became the manipulating power behind governments whose presence most of us have become vaguely aware of in more recent times.

    What few have ever suspected is the vast extent of wealth that finances public indoctrination in every nation; literally trillions of dollars. For example, as readily and publicly admitted by David Rockefeller, all spontaneous social movements that have emerged since 1970, no matter how legitimate their cause, have been subsumed and manipulated to serve the objectives of one part of this elite or the other. Thus it was that the women’s movement of the late 1960s, very reasonably demanding equal rights and equal opportunity, became suddenly diverted into a drive to replace men altogether and to promote the concept of the single family. This anthropological coup was easily managed by the media and orchestrated by compliant politicians and by the United Nations; which was, we should recall, established by the Rockefeller family.

    Contrary to the peace-seeking vision of the UN presented to us by our gullible and well-indoctrinated school teachers, the United Nations was established by Nelson Rockefeller, and its headquarters installed on Rockefeller-owned land in New York. Moreover, the funds managed by the UN agencies: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements, are owned and controlled by the same Rockefeller-Rothschild alliance. And the US Federal Reserve, like all other institutions around the world, including the Bank of England, are all owned by these same entities; who also direct the activities of the World Trade Organisation.

    Thus it has been, that all apparently spontaneous social movements; such as multiculturalism, refugee rights, gay rights and feminism, have been funded and controlled by the global political elite. David Rockefeller does not deny this, and is, as he said, “proud of it”.

    The corporate motivation for its part in social manipulation is recognition that family and democracy are the prime units of social cohesion of all societies, and are the sources of values seen to be in direct conflict with globalist corporate ambitions. Very correctly, parents have been identified as the high priests of respect, love and loyalty, and are the genesis of all consumer resistance; therefore parents are the declared enemy.

    In retrospect, we may see that since the establishment of the United Nations, national government’s have become oligarchic, authoritarian and elitist; and policies increasingly violate the real rights of parents and children, whilst pretending to create these rights. Accordingly, the state is gradually assuming control and responsibility for child nurturing. In more tangible terms, since the UN brokered the termination of dedicated teachers training colleges, this role has been delivered to universities that are now mere appendages of UNESCO; with the primary objective of training teachers and social workers to severe the intergenerational transfer of values.

    We may readily appreciate that the primary obstacles to the corporate-desired New World Order are Family and Democracy. This is the reason why the meaning of the word democracy has been under sustained attack, successfully reversing the meaning in many people’s minds, from government by electoral consensus, into government by elites who purport to represent the people.

    Most assuredly, in the not too distant future, we will hear that ‘democracy’ has failed and must be replaced with something more practical; like a benign world dictatorship.

    The promoters of the new philosophy are somewhat coy about the language used to describe their vision of the future, but disillusioned insiders have described it as neo-feudalism; a return to the age of lords and serfs.

    Very clearly, we would be wise to review this situation and calculate where our social and historical navigation went wrong.

    What is known about real democracy?

    The first question we should ask ourselves is what do we really know about democracy? Unfortunately, books on the subject appear to have disappeared from public libraries, so the prevailing confusion is eminently understandable.

    Our oldest record of democracy goes back to ancient Greece, which in fact was only a partial democracy wherein a mere 18.5% of the population had the right to vote. All other people; that is, all women, children, aliens and slaves had no right to vote. Only men, both of whose parents were Athenians, were eligible. But even this information is being obscured. Wikipedia and other popular sources of information provide a distorted version of this history.

    We are discouraged or prevented from learning about historical democracies because for the ruling elite this is an inconvenient truth. Nevertheless, imperfect as Greek democracy was, we should not simply dismiss it as irrelevant. The Athenians utilized democracy’s essential principles and, as a result, were politically and culturally ascendant for four remarkable centuries.

    What is omitted from mainstream knowledge is that the ancient Greeks had a culture within which a major determinant for action centered on the powerful ethic of actively representing their countrymen and women.

    Thus, voting councilors felt irresistibly compelled to visit their family and vassals and reveal their constituent’s true feelings and aspirations regarding the current circumstances and future of Greece. There was considerable pride in achieving this level of representation, and implacable contempt for those who could not. We gain the most enlightening insight into their values, and to the extent of historical distortion, when we read the funeral oratory of Thucydides, following the death of Pericles.

    “We do not copy our neighbours (other nations), but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.

    But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their civil disputes, the claim of personal excellence and integrity is also recognised; thus, when a citizen is in anyway distinguished, he is appointed to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit.

    Neither is poverty a barrier. A man may contribute to the uplifting of his country regardless of the obscurity of his origin or circumstances. We are prevented from doing the wrong thing by respect for the authority of the nation and for the laws, having a special regard for those which are initiated for the protection of the aged and the infirm, as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the stern reprobation of the community.

    An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he is committed to his own affairs; and even those of us who are preoccupied with commerce have a very fair idea of politics.

    We alone, of the peoples of the world, regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless person, but as a useless character. And, even if few of us are original thinkers and initiators, we are all sound judges of policy”.

    What would Thucydides think of our noble Australian manhood, whose thoughts rarely divert from football or cricket; or our fair ladies as they immerse themselves in the wisdom of Cosmo or New Idea? And, to those foreigners who bray a derisory laugh, is there not a pervading demographic equivalent in every western nation?

    What made ancient Greece great was that this quasi-democracy, reinforced by a culture of almost obsessive consensus, was able to harness the entire knowledge, experience and wisdom of its citizenry. The power of this is incalculable, but not unknown; we call it people power.

    Utilising people power, Greece was able to defeat the mighty Persians, who were handicapped by a hierarchy with all power at the top; a scenario which ensured sycophancy and corruption.

    Sound familiar?

    In spite of contemporary elites repressing our knowledge of history, it is still possible to read about other great democracies. The Irish Monks were our great first-millennia documenters, and most of us harbor vague recollections of these people, but few of us are aware that most of these monks were married and had families, and about a third were women; and the greatest monk of all was a woman (somewhat giving the lie to the historical revisionism of Rockefeller’s divisive feminists).

    This was Greater Europe of the 4th to the 9th centuries; a time when Ireland alone rescued and preserved all knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome, and was the cultural hub of Europe. The Monks traveled the known world, recording cultures, knowledge and collected wisdoms and dispersed these amongst all peoples. Ireland of this time was a democracy; the kings, inherited clan chieftains of old, were the administrators and executives, but their role was exclusively the implementation of the will of the people. A similar regime operated in then contemporary Finland, and is still echoed in the culture of the Sámi.

    This Age of Enlightenment and Peace was terminated by the Holy Vatican of Rome, firstly when it imposed celibacy on the Monks; then with the violent launching of a regime of enforced ignorance, repression, poverty, torture, hegemony, ritualised execution (burnings at the stake and garroting) and institutionalised war and genocides.

    Although the Vatican has been anxious to forestall even the most casual of glances at the first millennia Age of Enlightenment, by shrouding this era with the designation, Dark Ages; in fact, the true Dark Ages commenced with the defeat of European democracy and continued for more than a thousand years. This was a time of debauched and murderous Popes, as many as four ruling in competition during one period, and the theft of the wealth of all prosperous people, under the guise of eliminating heretics.

    Rome continues to wage a global war against democracy, even in Australia (ie the overturning of the NT’s voluntary euthanasia legislation, supported by 90% of the Northern Territory population). And, in collaboration with the CIA, there was the assassination of the thirteen South American rebel priests who had established Liberation Theology, which redefined Christianity as defending the poor from exploitation by the rich.

    The European democracies, as did ancient Greece, embraced many millions of peaceful citizens over a period of four hundred years; which speaks persuasively as to the efficacy and practicality of consensus government. However, the Greek and European democracies were both preceded by eminently more purist models. By looking at the cultures of Australian Aborigines, the Kung of Africa and the Inuit of the far northern American continent, we can observe that democracy is actually the natural continuity of human social organisation.

    We would do well to at least glance at these cultures; and where else but at Australia? We will present some detail here because it may balance in some way the diminished, trivialized, politicised and degraded version of culture presented by the pseudo Aborigines who now dominate the media.

    While this brief article has no interest in launching anthropological civil war, it should nevertheless be recognised that, unlike their colleagues in every other country in the world, few Australian anthropologists bothered to learn Aboriginal languages. This entirely discredits their interpretations of Aboriginal culture.

    It is not possible to develop an insight into an alien culture without first learning its language(s). The Pidgin English used instead was, and is, entirely useless, as was pointed out by eminent and conscientious anthropologist, Elkin, some seventy years ago. Little wonder modern anthropologists and black arm-band historians vilify him.

    However, a few ordinary Australians did try to learn languages and these people developed a picture entirely at variance to the academic model. One of the insights to emerge was of a non-hierarchical people who made decisions by initiating consensus protocols. These operated simply and very effectively on a single principle: all decisions involve focus on a geographical location, therefore the person whose spirit had its origins in that location launched the consensus process. Because each person’s personal name denoted his spiritual origins (and still does), ascription was easily identified.

    Initiating consensus simply requires verbalising the essential question by the person with the appropriate name (the consensus process designate). This usually takes the form of neutral references to supposed advantages or disadvantages of the full range of options and becomes the signal for every man, woman and child to commence discussion.

    The protocol initiator will eventually observe that absolute consensus has developed, and he will formally announce the community’s consensus. In traditional Aboriginal culture, unilateral decision-making was entirely alien, as were power hierarchies. As in all cultures, through personal achievement, and even age itself, certain people most certainly developed higher status, but this was not applied to decision-making.

    It is understood that the African Bushmen and Inuit used similar methods; perhaps, considering the evidence of known history, equally purist in application. The implications are that, during human prehistory, democratic methods of social organisation were the norm, and hierarchical systems were a later aberration, always with highly unpleasant consequences. (As an oblique but interesting aside, these democratic cultures were also devoid of personal neurosis and many other social and emotional afflictions erroneously regarded by social scientists as endemic to all peoples).

    More recently in European history, an Englishman, Thomas Paine, wrote a series of books about democracy, the best known of which was The Rights of Man. With admirable perception, Paine identified hierarchies as the cause of all man’s woes and his then very popular writings meant the death knell of aristocracies; against whom all of Europe subsequently rebelled. His inspiration also provided the rebellion movement with horizons and direction and, more importantly, identified in advance that peace and prosperity can only become an outcome if all authority derives from The People.

    The Rights of Man was the prime influence that countered the exasperating excesses of England’s George the Third and those of Louis xvi of France, both of whom claimed divine right to rule. Paine’s thoughts provided the inspiration for the original drafts of the French and American Constitutions.

    The aristocracy and merchant plutocrats moved swiftly to defeat this movement and, thenceforth, an intensive regime of censorship has operated in almost every country; which continues to this day. We may regard this as the commencement of what has come to be known as pursuit of the New World Order; a fine-sounding euphemism for return to raw feudalism in which an all-powerful elite will rule over a uniformly-impoverished humanity.

    The key to manipulation was in ambiguous use of the word representation, through which direct rule by the people (consensus), later delivered to a parliament by their elected representative; became direct rule by elected representatives (representationalism).

    Therein, we have been tricked into electing corrupt and manipulated politicians to do our thinking for us. Moreover, if these politicians represent political parties, as approved candidates they are selected and vetted for future compliance by the entities that provide election campaign finance. These entities are led by the very bankers and media owners who created the New World Order agenda. To complete the illusion of choice, we are provided with dually-funded Tweedledum/Tweedledee major political parties.

    These acts of philosophical sabotage were the product of Paine’s single miscomprehension; inasmuch as he ascribed the rights of man to the Christian God; explicitly, that God created all men equal. The exploitable weaknesses of this notion were:

    • That it meant nothing to non-Christians;

    • That the Christian Church organisations were innately hierarchical and, moreover, enthusiastically supported the imposition of ignorance and poverty on the masses; and

    • That, manifestly, people are not born equal. Many are already disadvantaged by being the product of unhealthy mothers, thereby impinging on their intelligence, health, immuno-systems and capacity to survive and be productive. Moreover, being born into wealth provides elites with an immediate advantage.

    Unfortunately, Paine failed to realise that adoption of three stand-alone axioms of law would have established the desired equality:

    • Informed Electoral Consensus;

    • Equal Rights; and

    • Equal Opportunity.

    Already by 1792, seizing their opportunity, the Jacobins had hijacked the French Revolution and the new Constitution. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the ruthless American plutocracy, otherwise known as the revered Founding Fathers, through their agent James Madison, excised all references to democracy in the Declaration of Independence and in the US Constitution. The entire rights of man were watered down to a vague and futile pursuit of happiness. Later, some scholar drew attention to the desecration and ten subsequent amendments were eventually implemented in impotent and piecemeal disarray, ironically to become known grandly as the American Bill of Rights, embarrassedly emulating the British act of 1688. A more appropriate title would have been a very upper case “Ooops!” As the absolute hollowness of the American Constitution became apparent, the number of amendments eventually totaled twenty-seven.

    The cherished belief that American colonials had a vision of democracy is a promulgated distortion. The ordinary people did indeed envisage democracy as presented by Thomas Paine, and with great joy and anticipation; but their leaders were horrified by the prospect. In fact, they initiated an unworkable modeling of a presidency based loosely on the role of the British Monarch, but with more executive power; and with two incompatible houses of parliament which served to frustrate the wishes of the people.

    The United States of America is not, and never was a democracy and the word democracy does not appear in any of its enabling documents.

    The US is a plutocracy; a regime of the wealthy elite; which employs an oligarchy to pursue its interests. The American people are taught what to believe by the Plutocracy, as is the less ingenuous oligarchy; which the people harangue futilely hoping it will obey their wishes.

    As we snicker at American naiveté and gullibility, we should become more sharply aware that democracy plays no part in our governments either, and neither is democracy mentioned in any of our enabling documents. We, too, have been deceived.

    Since 1850, when the fifth son of Mayer Rothschild finally linked the US Plutocracy to the Rothschild’s European banking empire, the drafting of all laws and constitutions has been contained and directed by the globalist elite, through their local servants in each national community… the hierarchy we know of in many countries as the Law Society.

    What should be the shape of contemporary democracy?

    To understand real democracy, we need to sweep away the mountain of academic and journalistic garbage under which real democracy has been buried. As the KISS adage suggests, we should keep the explanation simple, because genuine democracy is indeed simple; as we shall see:

    All politics is about power.

    Power in the hands of the people is democracy. Power in the hands of any minority or group is not democracy. What minority control may well be is oligarchy, theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy; or any of the specific variants on this theme; but none of these can be described as democracy. In terms of the much abused spectrum of politics (left and right politics): left is power distributed evenly throughout the people; right is power redistributed to a minority; a minority of many, or of one.

    Just for the record, Karl Marx despised democracy and recommended a system of bureaucracies (centralisation of power to committees), which inevitably evolved to dictatorships. No other destiny was possible; therefore communists/socialists are right wing, not left wing; as the elitist manipulators of knowledge would have us believe. This confusion is deliberately promulgated in order to blur our perception of genuine democracy.

    Fabian socialists too, are right wing, believing that government should be subsumed by stealth and manipulated by a knowledgeable elite; and that government should wield power on behalf of the people. All aspire to the same dictatorial New World Order. Howard’s support of Monarchy merely reflects his acknowledgement of an older path to a common goal.

    Their convergent objective has always been to make their country subordinate to a world dictatorship; variously referred to as World Governance or New World Order depending upon perspective. New Zealand’s Helen Clarke is of the same ilk, even more ambitiously anticipating her United Nations reward to be the Secretary Generalship.

    Regardless of apparent political colours all political parties, including the Greens, are directed by the same banker/media elite, led by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, and closely allied to Rupert Murdoch. Regardless of claims, all political parties want to erase democracy forever and this real agenda is exposed in their failure to acknowledge the will of electorates on almost any issue.

    It should be recalled that the duplicity of power-mongers has long been observed and that much of what I am saying is not new. With incisive perception, Lord Acton analysed the multitudinal betrayals of the people and concluded that There are no great leaders, only bad men, and that these manipulators subsequently arrange for history to portray them in a flattering light. He also wisely noted that Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thus pointing out the freedom-destruction of the representationalism that the Rockefeller/Rothschild cabal has so fraudulently but successfully been superimposing on our understanding of democracy.

    We should be uncompromising in our understanding here. Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Anything else is simply not Democracy.

    So, what does this mean in terms of more desirable political structures?

    This is quite simple. We, the electorate, following considered exposure to all the relevant information, should decide the direction and thrust of policy. Those of us who wish to busy ourselves with the nuts and bolts of policy implementation are fully entitled to do so, although most citizens would back away from such details.

    Something approximating this process occurred in 1967, when Australians overwhelmingly supported a referendum over Aboriginal inclusion in national census and statistics. Although politicians remained hopelessly divided over the issue, prompted by Aboriginal rights activists, the people discussed it in depth for a decade and inevitably found overwhelming consensus.

    In a democracy, electoral consensus should be conveyed in documented form to Parliament, wherein this consensus flows and melds with the consensus of other electorates, and is subsequently implemented by the Public Service. It is not necessary for electorates to deliver identical or even similar policies.

    In fact, national uniform laws only function effectively where circumstances are identical in implementation.

    The role of politicians requires redefining, after several decades of escalating abuse. In a genuine democracy the role of politician is tantamount to that of message boy; albeit a trusted and broadly knowledgeable one; consensus coordination. It is not the politician’s function to deliberate on or to preempt electoral decisions.

    Ensuring democratic consensus

    In pursuit of this consensus coordinating role; and at least until a culture of democracy is imbedded in America, each candidate should sign a contract with his electorate to convey to parliament only the informed and documented consensus of that electorate. The candidate must also pre-sign an undated letter of resignation, which the electorate can activate in the event of betrayal. These are effective and realistic protections against the megalomania, messiah complex and corruption that inevitably afflict all contemporary politicians.

    Contrary to hierarchical propaganda, any competent survey of the electorate today will reveal that, even on issues in respect of which the people have not had access to sufficient information, there is near-consensus of 70% to 90%+ on almost every important issue. Polls that indicate otherwise are manipulated.

    Although we have merely touched on the empowering phenomenon of democracy here, a single item of Globalist propaganda will demonstrate the full extent of our indoctrination, and of our cultivated and unquestioning acceptance that absolute non-democracy is nevertheless democracy:

    We all routinely accept the defining legitimacy of the statement that a 51% vote constitutes a democratic majority, yet a 49:51 division is actually clear evidence of absolute division in the community; hardly a desirable circumstance, nor one through which we should proceed without the certain knowledge we are courting disaster and failure.

    How did we accept without question, such a transparent oxymoron?

    There are some fifty beliefs about government that are just as illogical and invalid, yet these too are accepted globally as self-evident truths. We will present all of these on our sister Internet site, wherein all contemporary issues will be presented as objectively and honestly as availability of information permits.

    Consensus democracy is no mere ideal. It is axiomatic that any 1000 people share more collective wisdom and knowledge than any single person or ‘leader’ no matter how extraordinary this person’s range of knowledge may be. Moreover, the 1000 people have counter-balancing experiences, whereas the values and emotions of the single leader are inevitably distorted by specialisation and demographic positioning.

    In a genuine consensus democracy, the nation has access to the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of the entire adult population; a vastly superior resource to that possessed by a handful of inevitably and invariably megalomaniacal leaders.