View Poll Results: Should the people be free to transact unimpeded in any currency they choose?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. The people should be free to transact unimpeded in any currency they choose.

    39 95.12%
  • No. The government should force the people by law or taxation to transact only in govnmnt currency.

    2 4.88%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 134 of 134

Thread: Honest Money Constitutional Amendment

  1. #121
    Tom Woods Answers Myths About Sound Money



    Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money
    Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 10-05-2012 at 11:46 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Lindsey Williams: The dollar to lose much of its purchasing power by the end of December 2012, and to go into hyperinflation by April or June of 2013.

    Get out of all paper assets, because you WILL lose them. Buy food-storage now (it will be too expensive in December); buy durable goods now, and if anything is left after that buy silver and gold. You have been warned. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."


    If You Enjoyed This Presentation From Lindsey Williams
    Please Buy “2102 The Beginning of the End” 3 DVD Set From Prophecy Club


    Be warned:
    Now the "elites" are going to "back" SDR's initially with gold and silver, to sucker people in, just like they did with Federal Reserve Notes, which initially were "backed" by gold, but that backing was gradually and quietly removed, until you end up with 100% UNBACKED currency, so they can plunder the peoples of the world at will by pressing a few keys on a computer to create trillions out of nothing. This is the same fraud in progress. This is how SDR's will start, and that is how they will end.

    The only REAL solution is to allow Free Competition in Currencies, that Freedom demands. Thus Free Market will end fiat fraud, because unbacked fiat is ONLY possible via a government FORCED MONOPOLY, and speedily dies when Free Competition in Currencies is present. THAT is the TRUE Solution. Everything else are different shades of a lie. Demand Free Competition in Currencies, as advocated by this amendment, and demand PHYSICAL delivery of gold and silver. That is the ONLY way to restore an honest monetary system and to ensurer LIBERTY and Prosperity of the people. There is NO OTHER WAY.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 10-13-2012 at 06:31 PM.

  4. #123

  5. #124
    The Myth of Fed Independence

    by Murray N. Rothbard


    Excerpted from The Case Against The Fed

    By far the most secret and least accountable operation of the federal government is not, as one might expect, the CIA, DIA, or some other super-secret intelligence agency. The CIA and other intelligence operations are under control of the Congress. They are accountable: a Congressional committee supervises these operations, controls their budgets, and is informed of their covert activities. It is true that the committee hearings and activities are closed to the public; but at least the people’s representatives in Congress insure some accountability for these secret agencies.

    It is little known, however, that there is a federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation's vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody – and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.

    Thus, when the first Democratic president in over a decade was inaugurated in 1993, the maverick and venerable Democratic chairman of the House Banking Committee, Texan Henry B. Gonzalez, optimistically introduced some of his favorite projects for opening up the Fed to public scrutiny. His proposals seemed mild; he did not call for full-fledged Congressional control of the Fed’s budget. The Gonzalez Bill required full independent audits of the Fed’s operations; videotaping the meetings of the Fed’s policy-making committee; and releasing detailed minutes of the policy meetings within a week, rather than the Fed being allowed, as it is now, to issue vague summaries of its decisions six weeks later. In addition, the presidents of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks would be chosen by the president of the United States rather than, as they are now, by the commercial banks of the respective regions.

    It was to be expected that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan would strongly resist any such proposals. After all, it is in the nature of bureaucrats to resist any encroachment on their unbridled power. Seemingly more surprising was the rejection of the Gonzalez plan by President Clinton, whose power, after all, would be enhanced by the measure. The Gonzalez reforms, the President declared, “run the risk of undermining market confidence in the Fed.”

    On the face of it, this presidential reaction, though traditional among chief executives, is rather puzzling. After all, doesn’t a democracy depend upon the right of the people to know what is going on in the government for which they must vote? Wouldn’t knowledge and full disclosure strengthen the faith of the American public in their monetary authorities? Why should public knowledge “undermine market confidence”? Why does “market confidence” depend on assuring far less public scrutiny than is accorded keepers of military secrets that might benefit foreign enemies? What is going on here?

    The standard reply of the Fed and its partisans is that any such measures, however marginal, would encroach on the Fed’s “independence from politics,” which is invoked as a kind of self-evident absolute. The monetary system is highly important, it is claimed, and therefore the Fed must enjoy absolute independence.

    “Independent of politics” has a nice, neat ring to it, and has been a staple of proposals for bureaucratic intervention and power ever since the Progressive Era. Sweeping the streets; control of seaports; regulation of industry; providing social security; these and many other functions of government are held to be “too important” to be subject to the vagaries of political whims. But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and “independent of politics” in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be “independent of politics” conveys very different implications. For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.” If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country. And yet it is curious how many self-proclaimed champions of “democracy,” whether domestic or global, rush to defend the alleged ideal of the total independence of the Federal Reserve.

    Representative Barney Frank (D., Mass.), a co-sponsor of the Gonzalez Bill, points out that “if you take the principles that people are talking about nowadays,” such as “reforming government and opening up government – the Fed violates it more than any other branch of government.” On what basis, then, should the vaunted “principle” of an independent Fed be maintained?

    It is instructive to examine who the defenders of this alleged principle may be, and the tactics they are using. Presumably one political agency the Fed particularly wants to be independent from is the U.S. Treasury. And yet Frank Newman, President Clinton's Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, in rejecting the Gonzalez reform, states: “The Fed is independent and that’s one of the underlying concepts.” In addition, a revealing little point is made by the New York Times, in noting the Fed’s reaction to the Gonzalez Bill: “The Fed is already working behind the scenes to organize battalions of bankers to howl about efforts to politicize the central bank” (New York Times, October 12, 1993). True enough. But why should these “battalions of bankers” be so eager and willing to mobilize in behalf of the Fed’s absolute control of the monetary and banking system? Why should bankers be so ready to defend a federal agency which controls and regulates them, and virtually determines the operations of the banking system? Shouldn’t private banks want to have some sort of check, some curb, upon their lord and master? Why should a regulated and controlled industry be so much in love with the unchecked power of their own federal controller?

    Let us consider any other private industry. Wouldn’t it be just a tad suspicious if, say, the insurance industry demanded unchecked power for their state regulators, or the trucking industry total power for the ICC, or the drug companies were clamoring for total and secret power to the Food and Drug Administration? So shouldn’t we be very suspicious of the oddly cozy relationship between the banks and the Federal Reserve? What’s going on here? Our task in this volume is to open up the Fed to the scrutiny it is unfortunately not getting in the public arena.

    Absolute power and lack of accountability by the Fed are generally defended on one ground alone: that any change would weaken the Federal Reserve’s allegedly inflexible commitment to wage a seemingly permanent “fight against inflation.” This is the Johnny-one-note of the Fed’s defense of its unbridled power. The Gonzalez reforms, Fed officials warn, might be seen by financial markets “as weakening the Fed’s ability to fight inflation” (New York Times, October 8, 1993). In subsequent Congressional testimony, Chairman Alan Greenspan elaborated this point. Politicians, and presumably the public, are eternally tempted to expand the money supply and thereby aggravate (price) inflation. Thus to Greenspan:

    The temptation is to step on the monetary accelerator or at least to avoid the monetary brake until after the next election. Giving in to such temptations is likely to impart an inflationary bias to the economy and could lead to instability, recession, and economic stagnation.


    The Fed’s lack of accountability, Greenspan added, is a small price to pay to avoid “putting the conduct of monetary policy under the close influence of politicians subject to short-term election cycle pressure” (New York Times, October 14, 1993).


    So there we have it. The public, in the mythology of the Fed and its supporters, is a great beast, continually subject to a lust for inflating the money supply and therefore for subjecting the economy to inflation and its dire consequences. Those dreaded all-too-frequent inconveniences called “elections” subject politicians to these temptations, especially in political institutions such as the House of Representatives who come before the public every two years and are therefore particularly responsive to the public will. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, guided by monetary experts independent of the public’s lust for inflation, stands ready at all times to promote the long-run public interest by manning the battlements in an eternal fight against the Gorgon of inflation. The public, in short, is in desperate need of absolute control of money by the Federal Reserve to save it from itself and its short-term lusts and temptations. One monetary economist, who spent much of the 1920s and 1930s setting up Central Banks throughout the Third World, was commonly referred to as “the money doctor.” In our current therapeutic age, perhaps Greenspan and his confreres would like to be considered as monetary “therapists,” kindly but stern taskmasters whom we invest with total power to save us from ourselves.

    But in this administering of therapy, where do the private bankers fit in? Very neatly, according to Federal Reserve officials. The Gonzalez proposal to have the president instead of regional bankers appoint regional Fed presidents would, in the eyes of those officials, “make it harder for the Fed to clamp down on inflation.” Why? Because, the “sure way” to “minimize inflation” is “to have private bankers appoint the regional bank presidents.” And why is this private banker role such a “sure way”? Because, according to the Fed officials, private bankers “are among the world’s fiercest inflation hawks” (New York Times, October 12, 1993).

    The worldview of the Federal Reserve and its advocates is now complete. Not only are the public and politicians responsive to it eternally subject to the temptation to inflate; but it is important for the Fed to have a cozy partnership with private bankers. Private bankers, as “the world's fiercest inflation hawks,” can only bolster the Fed’s eternal devotion to battling against inflation.

    There we have the ideology of the Fed as reflected in its own propaganda, as well as respected Establishment transmission belts such as the New York Times, and in pronouncements and textbooks by countless economists. Even those economists who would like to see more inflation accept and repeat the Fed’s image of its own role. And yet every aspect of this mythology is the very reverse of the truth. We cannot think straight about money, banking, or the Federal Reserve until this fraudulent legend has been exposed and demolished.

    There is, however, one and only one aspect of the common legend that is indeed correct: that the overwhelmingly dominant cause of the virus of chronic price inflation is inflation, or expansion, of the supply of money. Just as an increase in the production or supply of cotton will cause that crop to be cheaper on the market; so will the creation of more money make its unit of money, each franc or dollar, cheaper and worth less in purchasing power of goods on the market.

    But let us consider this agreed-upon fact in the light of the above myth about the Federal Reserve. We supposedly have the public clamoring for inflation while the Federal Reserve, flanked by its allies the nation’s bankers, resolutely sets its face against this short-sighted public clamor. But how is the public supposed to go about achieving this inflation? How can the public create, i.e., “print,” more money? It would be difficult to do so, since only one institution in the society is legally allowed to print money. Anyone who tries to print money is engaged in the high crime of “counterfeiting,” which the federal government takes very seriously indeed. Whereas the government may take a benign view of all other torts and crimes, including mugging, robbery, and murder, and it may worry about the “deprived youth” of the criminal and treat him tenderly, there is one group of criminals whom no government ever coddles: the counterfeiters. The counterfeiter is hunted down seriously and efficiently, and he is salted away for a very long time; for he is committing a crime that the government takes very seriously: he is interfering with the government’s revenue: specifically, the monopoly power to print money enjoyed by the Federal Reserve.

    “Money,” in our economy, is pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve, on which are engraved the following: “This Note is Legal Tender for all Debts, Private, and Public.” This “Federal Reserve Note,” and nothing else, is money, and all vendors and creditors must accept these notes, like it or not.

    So: if the chronic inflation undergone by Americans, and in almost every other country, is caused by the continuing creation of new money, and if in each country its governmental “Central Bank” (in the United States, the Federal Reserve) is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money, who then is responsible for the blight of inflation? Who except the very institution that is solely empowered to create money, that is, the Fed (and the Bank of England, and the Bank of Italy, and other central banks) itself?

    In short: even before examining the problem in detail, we should already get a glimmer of the truth: that the drumfire of propaganda that the Fed is manning the ramparts against the menace of inflation brought about by others is nothing less than a deceptive shell game. The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and-cry about “inflation,” for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible. What we are seeing is the old ploy by the robber who starts shouting “Stop, thief!” and runs down the street pointing ahead at others. We begin to see why it has always been important for the Fed, and for other Central Banks, to invest themselves with an aura of solemnity and mystery. For, as we shall see more fully, if the public knew what was going on, if it was able to rip open the curtain covering the inscrutable Wizard of Oz, it would soon discover that the Fed, far from being the indispensable solution to the problem of inflation, is itself the heart and cause of the problem. What we need is not a totally independent, all-powerful Fed; what we need is no Fed at all.




    Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and chief academic officer of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his executor. See Murray's books.

    Copyright © 2013 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

  6. #125
    Gold & Silver Ep1: Mike Maloney - Hidden Secrets of Money



    Here are the details for you:
    http://successcouncilmail.com/link.p...=196&L=368&F=H
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 03-16-2013 at 10:47 PM.

  7. #126

  8. #127
    ...

    The history of banking in the modern era (since the establishment of the Bank of England in the late 17th century), has been nothing but an ugly cavalcade of theft of sovereign national treasuries too vast to calculate. From the beginning, these large private central banks (the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, etc.), were intentionally designed to operate freely above the rule of law in their respective nations. They have been the financiers of most of the conflicts and wars in the last two centuries and are continuing to do so unabated to the present. Countless millions have died in these bankers’ wars in service to the unbridled greed of these financiers.

    Through the massive inflation of each nation’s currency they dominate, the bankers have robbed the citizens of the purchasing power of their money and with it, their life savings. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, for example, the purchasing power of the US dollar has been eroded to nearly 1/100th of its original value. This has not been accidental. This was planned from the beginning. Private fractional reserve central banking is the greatest criminal conspiracy that continues to this day to hide in plain sight.

    But please, don’t just think this is only our opinion. Fascinatingly, the bankers themselves have throughout the decades, clearly revealed their purpose and intent. At this juncture, we would like to offer some quotes for you by the highest ranking members of the banking elite, past and present.


    “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

    “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.

    “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

    “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of 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 interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

    “When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it Simply.”

    “Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.”“Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” – Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

    “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

    “I am just a banker doing God’s work.”Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009

    “Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.”Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010


    So there it is in their own words. The arrogance, elitism, and condescension of bankers towards the common citizen are starkly revealed. These brilliant criminals have created the Ponzi scheme of all Ponzi schemes and so far, protected it from any form of criminal prosecution. However, that might be about to change. Awareness of their criminality is growing throughout the world at a rapid pace but never doubt that this group will fight tenaciously and be willing to go to any extremes to protect their centuries’ old scam. We predict there will undoubtedly be more strange banker deaths ahead of us in the ensuing weeks, months, and years.

    The next time you walk into your local bank, please ask yourself this question, “Do I really want to entrust my hard earned wages and savings to a centuries’ old criminal scheme?” If you don’t, please consider gold and silver for protection of your wealth.”

    Read full article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/n...it-like-it-is/

  9. #128



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    The Biggest Secret About Banking Has Just Gone Mainstream

    Posted on April 28, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

    Banks Create Money Out of Thin Air … Conferring Enormous Windfall Profits At the Expense of the People

    We’ve pointed out for 4 1/2 years that banks create money out of thin air.
    Specifically, it has now been conclusively proven that loans come first … and then deposits FOLLOW.
    This is the most important secret about modern banking … because it debunks one of the biggest myths preventing a strong economy, challenges one of the main pork barrel profit centers for big banks … and opens up incredible opportunities for a prosperous economy.

    This odd and counter-intuitive – but crucially important – truth has now gone mainstream …
    Specifically, the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf – one of the world’s most influential mainstream financial writers - says that, since banks create money out of thin air, they should be stripped of this power, and limited to normal depository functions. Wolf indicates the centrality and importance of the issue with his subtitle:

    The giant hole at the heart of our market economies needs to be plugged.
    And Business Insider – the world’s most popular financial news blog – is currently running this as its top two front page stories:



    (Read the Business Insider stories here and here.)
    If we reclaimed the power to create credit from the too big to fail banks, we would all be much wealthier

  12. #130

  13. #131
    What Will Trump Do About the Central-Bank Cartel?

    Trump could end global banking tyranny


    Thorsten Pollet | Mises.org - February 13, 2017

    Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle” –

    “The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.”

    Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us –

    “It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.”

    Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.

    If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.

    http://www.infowars.com/what-will-tr...l-bank-cartel/
    Full article here.

  14. #132
    Update? Has it collapsed yet?
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Update? Has it collapsed yet?

    Yet another example of you being antagonistic and breaking the site rules. Along with your now "supporting member" status.


    Zippyjuan
    Supporting Member


    Posts
    32,358
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Update? Has it collapsed yet?
    It will.

    This is why we need free competition in currencies so that people may have an alternative.

    Justice demands this freedom. Denying it is unjust and immoral.

    Besides, 98% of purchasing power of the dollar has been stolen already since 1913. Is that not a collapse?
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 02-14-2017 at 03:46 AM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Similar Threads

  1. Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
    By Foundation_Of_Liberty in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 229
    Last Post: 02-13-2017, 01:29 PM
  2. Constitutional Amendment
    By beaven in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 02:16 PM
  3. Democrats Push for Constitutional Amendment to Roll Back First Amendment
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 03:46 PM
  4. 2011 Tea Party HONEST MONEY for an Honest man
    By TomtheTinker in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-15-2011, 03:08 AM
  5. What about a constitutional amendment?
    By forsmant in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-18-2010, 10:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •