The Big Lie

(Following is an essay your humble webmaster wrote for Volume 3 of his Thomas-Paine-esque pamphet, Common Sense, which was published and distributed on July 4, 1990. Armed with this little factoid, the reader will be able to more easily understand the essay's references to "Common Sense.")

THE BIG LIE

by John Wilkenson

One of the reasons meaningful judicial reform has been so slow in coming, and one of the reasons the judiciary has been so successful in diffusing political accountability for their buddies in the legislatures, is because most Americans, when faced with a Supreme Court decision they don’t like, tend to view it as a simple abberation , a freak occurence, rather than a fundamental systemic failure. For example, you may want to compare the Coinage Act of 1792 with today's morally and intellectually fraudulent system. Hopefully this essay and this entire edition of Common Sense will help change that phenomenon and speed the day when all supreme court justices and judges will have to stand for popular election.

To help understand the truth of history, the reader might find useful the following definitions the writer found necessary to look up in Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition):

1.    Bill of Credit—In constitutional law, a bill or promissory note issued by the government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit, designed to circulate in the community as money, and REDEEMABLE AT A FUTURE DAY.

2.    Legal Tender—That kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.

3.    Nemine Contadicente—No one dissenting; no one voting in the negative. A phrase used to indicate the unanimous consent of a court or legislative body to a judgment, resolution, vote, or motion. Commonly abbreviated “nem. con.”

All three branches of government were involved in the fraudulent central bankster corruption of the U.S. monetary system and the attendant de facto elimination/negation of the U.S. Constitution. On the first Monday of December, 1869, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 which provided for eight Associate Justices instead of seven. Including the Chief Justice, that made nine justices in all, the present number. On Feb. 7, 1870, bankster-friendly President Ulysses S. Grant, also a Republican, nominated William Strong to succeed the retiring justice Robert C. Grier, a Democrat. Grant also got to appoint Joseph P. Bradley -- on the same day as he appointed Strong.

That was enough to achieve central bankster control over the U.S. Supreme Court. It was at that precise point in history when the fascistic war-economy-based American-Empire “national security” secret-police-state military-industrial complex which now functions as de facto private global goon squad for the criminally insane debt-as-legal-tender oligarchs got its start.

In Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 603 (Feb. 7, 1870) (4-3 decision) the majority justices were Salmon P. Chase (chief), Stephen J. Field, Nathan Clifford, Samuel Nelson, and Robert C. Grier (retiring), while the dissenting justices were David Davis, Noah H. Swayne, Samuel F. Miller (physician).

After the central bankster de facto coup d'etat, in Knox v. Lee Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (May 1, 1971, not announced until January 15, 1972) (5-4 decision), the majority justices were William Strong (switched from Democrat to Republican), David Davis, Noah H. Swayne, Samuel F. Miller, and Joseph P. Bradley, while the dissenting justices were Salmon P. Chase, Stephen J. Field, Nathan Clifford, and Samuel Nelson.

The Civil War Era central bankster coup d'etat against the U.S. Constitution serves as absolute proof of the life-and-death importance of the selection and appointment of U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The only thing really accomplished by the murder of an estimated 620,000 to 750,000 young men who didn't have the faintest clue of what was really going on, the only thing really accomplished by Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and completing the destruction of the 10th Amendment, and the only thing really accomplished by the bankster-owned U.S. Supreme Court lying through its teeth to the American people was the exchange of blacks-as-chattel slavery -- (a huge and inexcusable sin/evil in and of itself) -- for the economic debt-as-legal-tender, musical-chairs-monetary-number "funny money" slavery of everybody. Such is the grievous Karma resulting from the great evil of blacks-as-chattel slavery.

Since the infamous anti-freedom Legal Tender Cases of Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis, 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870), and Juilliard v. Greenman, 11 U.S. 421, decided on March 3, 1884 — compare these judicial lies with the truth of Hepburn v. Griswold 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870)1 — all the various majorities of the US Supreme Court have been composed of revisionist-history bald-faced liars, either for telling the original Big Lie and literally turning America's society and economy upside down, or for refusing to correct or even criticize this "mother" of all lies. The result could not possibly have been more catastrophic. On that date, without having listened to any public argument on the case, the Julliard court said:

“The power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from congress by the constitution; we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress.”

The Juilliard decision flew directly in the face of the language of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the  States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the the people.” In one fell swoop, based on the earlier anti-freedom case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819), the Juilliard decision dramatically (and unconstitutionally) expanded the power of the federal government from that which was “expressly granted” by the Constitution to that which was “not (expressly) withheld” by the Constitution.  Huge difference. Night and day difference. Freedom v. slavery difference. Life and death difference (De 30:19). Thomas Jefferson said that if the Constitution actually meant what the McCulloch decision said it meant, the states would have never ratified the Constitution.

Justice Stephen J. Field, courageously standing alone for the best interests of the American people, wrote a scathing and scholarly dissent, the last paragraph of which is especially worthy of note: “From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of us all when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half their nominal value. The possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money. This inborn infirmity no mere legislative declaration can cure. If Congress has the power to make the notes a legal tender and pass as money or its equivalent, why should not a sufficient amount be issued to pay the bonds of the United States as they mature? Why pay interest on the millions (make that billions and trillions nowadays — Common Sense) of dollars of bonds now due, when Congress can in one day make the money to pay the principle? And why should there be any restraint upon unlimited appropriations by the government for all imaginary schemes of public improvement, if the printing press can furnish the money that is needed for them?”

Thanks to the diligence of James Madison (who took notes at the constitutional convention) anyone who can read can determine the truth about the intent of the US Constitution regarding money.

Regarding the August 16, l787 debate on Article I, Section 8, Madison wrote2 :

“Mr. Govr Morris moved to strike out ‘and emit bills on the credit of the U. States’—lf the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not unjust & useless.

Mr. Butler, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. Madison, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. Govr. Morris. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

Mr.Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition, if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Col. Mason had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr Ghorum—The power as far as it will be necessary of safe, if involved in that of borrowing.

Mr. Mercer was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens.

Mr. Elseworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Governmentt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else—Paper money can in no case be necessary—Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer—The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. Randolph, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions that might arise.

Mr. Wilson. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered. And as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. Butler. remarked that paper was legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

Mr. Mason was stilt averse to tying the hands of the Legislature all together. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.

Mr. Read, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations3.

Mr. Langdon had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words ‘(and emit bills’).

On the motion for striking out

N.H. ay—Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N-J. no. Pa.

ay. Del.ay. Md. no. Va. ay.* N.C—ay. S.C. ay. Geo. ay.

yes—9; noes—2]

The clause for borrowing money, agreed to nem. con.

Adjd

*This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.”

Regarding the August 28,1787 debate on Article I, Section 10, Madison wrote:

“Mr. Wilson & Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words ‘coin money’ the words ‘nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts’ MAKING THESE PROHIBITIONS ABSOLUTE, INSTEAD OF MAKING THE MEASURES ALLOWABLE (as in the XIlIart:) WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE U.S.

Mr. Ghorum thought the purpose would be as well secured by the provision of art: XIII which makes the consent of the Geni. Legislature necessary, and that in that mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans— Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to license it.

The question being divided: on the 1st. part—’nor emit bills of credit’

N.H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. Pa. ay—DeI. ay. Md divd. Va. no. N—C.—ay——S-—C. ay. Geo. ay.

yes—8; noes—i; divided—i.]

The remaining part of Mr. Wilson’s and Sherman’s motion, was agreed to nem: con:

When reading the words of the Founders, it must be remembered they were discussing the idea of the GOVERNMENT printing paper money. It did not enter the minds of the Founders as even being possible or thinkable that Congress could or would delegate the monetary powers to a group of private banksters.

To supplement the clear proof of the intent of the Founders, any honest supreme court law clerk of that day, or any honest truth-seeker of modern times can easily find many opinions like the following:

OPINION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON.

“The federal government—I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender.”

OPINION ON PAPER MONEY, AS EXPRESSED IN 1776 BY THOMAS PAINE, the author of “Common Sense.”

“The laws of a country ought to be the standard of equity and calculated to impress on the minds of the people the moral as well as the legal obligations of political justice. But tender laws, of any kind, operate to destroy morality, and to dissolve by the pretence of law what ought to be the principle of law to support, reciprocal justice between man and man; and the punishment of a member who should move for such a law ought to be DEATH.”

In his heroic lone dissent in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), Justice Stephen J. Field said, "If there be anything in the history of the constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the states, and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties."

FROM A SPEECH OF CHARLES PINCKNEY, 20 May, 1788, in the convention of South Carolina.

I apprehend these general reasonings will be found true with respect to paper money: — That experience has shown, that in every state where it has been practiced since the revolution, it always carries the gold and silver out of the country, and impoverishes it: that while it remains, all the foreign merchants, trading in America, must suffer and lose by it; therefore, that it must ever be a discouragement to commerce: that every medium of trade should have an intrinsic value, which paper money has not; gold and silver are therefore the fittest for this medium, as they are an equivalent, which paper can never be: that debtors in the assemblies will, whenever they can, make paper money with fraudulent views. That in those states where the credit of paper money has been best supported, the bills have never kept to their nominal value in circulation; but have constantly depreciated to a certain degree.” — Elliot’s Debates, lV.334.

OPINION OF JOHN ADAMS on paper money.

I have always thought that Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Locke, a hundred years ago, at least, had scientifically and demonstratively settled all questions of this kind. Silver and gold are but commodities, as much as wheat and lumber; the merchants who study the necessity, and feel out the wants of the community, can always import enough to supply the necessary circulating currency, as they can broadcloth or sugar, the trinkets of Birmingham and Manchester, in 1750, and a silver currency taking its place immediately, and supplying every necessity and every convenience. I cannot enlarge upon this subject; it has always been incomprehensible to me, that a people so jealous of their liberty and property as the Americans, should so long have borne impositions with patience and submission, which would have been trampled underfoot in the meanest village in Holland, or undergone the fate of Wood’s halfpence in Ireland. I beg leave to refer you to a work which Mr. Jefferson has sent me, translated by himself from a French manuscript of the Count Destutt de Tracy. His chapter ‘of money’ contains the sentiments that I have entertained all my lifetime. I will quote only a few lines from the analytical table, page 21.

‘It is to be desired, that coins had never borne other names than those of their weight, and that the arbitrary denominations, called moneys of account, as L, s., d., etc., had never been used. But when these denominations are admitted and employed in transaction, to diminish the quantity of metal to which they answer, by an alteration of the real coins, it is to steal; and it is a theft which even injures him who commits it. A theft of greater magnitude and still more ruinous, is the making of paper money; it is greater, because in this money there is absolutely no real value; it is more ruinous, because, by its gradual depreciation during all the time of its existence, it produces the effect which would be produced by an infinity of successive deteriorations of the coins. All these iniquities are founded on the false idea, that money is but a sign.’ Permit me to recommend this volume to your attentive perusal.”

OPINION OF ROGER SHERMAN (the only man to sign all four of America’s most important founding documents), quoted from his almost extinct book, A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE, OR AN INQUIRY INTO THE EVILS OF A FLUCTUATING MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.

“But if what is used as a Medium of Exchange is fluctuating in its Value it is no better than unjust Weights and Measures, both of which are condemned by the Law of God3 and Man, and therefore the longest and most universal Custom could never make the Use of such a Medium either lawful or reasonable...And I doubt not but that if those two great Evils (dishonest money and drugs—editor) that have been mentioned were restrained we should soon see better Times.”

OPINION OF MASTER POLITICAL ECONOMIST HENRY STORCH.

“This deadly invention may be looked upon as the greatest chastisement of nations; and nothing but the most commanding necessity (government’s greatest “necessity” always has been, and always will be, war-editor) can justify its use in the eyes of reason. Abuse is almost inseperable from the use of it. When necessity orders to put an end to it, the order aiways comes too late.”

OPINION OF DANIEL WEBSTER, from a speech in the US Senate on December 21, 1836.

“Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional priciple, perfectly plain (to everyone but the US Supreme Court—editor), and OF THE VERY HIGHEST IMPORTANCE (emphasis added). The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silvera tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin, as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts. Congress has exercised this power, fully, in both its branches. It has coined money, and still coins it; it has regulated the value of foreign coins, and still regulates their value. The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is established and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it, would shake the whole system. The constitutional TENDER is the thing to be preserved, and it ought to be preserved sacredly, under all circumstances.”

REGARDING THE OPINION OF JOHN MARSHALL (widely considered for his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) as being perhaps THE greatest judge in US history).

"The inflexible adversary of paper money, detesting it with a hatred almost amounting to a passion, was the chief justice of the United States, John Marshall. While he was on the bench, no case could come before him, in which powerwas claimed for the United States to issue bills of credit; because at that day he and everybody else well understood and willingly acknowledged that the power to emit bills of credit was withheld from the United States, was forbidden by not being granted. But his opinion of the illegality of the issue of bills of credit by the states gave him the opportunity to declare in terms of universal application that the greatest violation of justice was committed when paper money was made a legal tender in payment of debts. But the opportunity to express his opinion, which was never offered to him as a judge, he found as a historian in his life of Washington. He claimed for himself and those with whom he acted, an ‘unabated zeal for the exact observance of public and private engagements.’ He rightly insisted that the only ways of relief for pecuniary ‘distresses’ were ‘industry and frugality;’ he condemned ‘all the wild projects of the moment;’ he rejected as a delusion every attempt at relief from pecuniary distresses ‘by the emission of paper money;’ or by ‘a depreciated medium of commerce.’ These were his opinions through life. He gave them to the public in 1807, and twenty-four years later in a revised edition of his Life of Washington he confirmed his eaily convictions by the authority of his maturest life.” See Tupper Saussy’s notes in his republished version of A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION by George Bancroft, one of America's greatest historians. In case you can't purchase a copy, or if you're eager to read it immediately, I have linked to it as a PDF FILE HERE.

“Okay, okay, so the Supreme Court lied to the American people about money,” you might say. “But that was along time ago. What’s the big deal? How does that affect me today.” In countless more ways, and much more seriously than anyone who is not acquainted with the issue can possibly imagine. For absolute proof, read on.

An argument might be made that paper money, per se, is not evil, regardless of what the Framers thought, and that it could be used in a morally legitimate social experiment as a substitute for taxation. The government could simply print the money necessary to build roads, bridges, libraries, etc., as Justice Field suggested. But it is crystal clear Article I, Section 8 would have to be amended to include the stricken power to “emit bills of credit,” and the relevant parts of Article I, Section 10 would have to be repealed. Furthermore, it the government were lawfully given the power to print paper money, it quite obviously would have no need of the power to borrow (with its attendant fraudulent “national” or “public” debt), as Justice Field so rightly observed.

But we are not talking about any kind of morally legitimate social experiment. We are talking about a highly organized and extremely clever criminal system of thievery where deliberately lying judges change the constitution covertly to allow their buddies in Congress and the rest of the financial establishment to circumvent constitutional procedures for amending the US Constitution and thereby avoid the comprehensive public exposure and debate that accompanies such causes. We are talking about the complete corruption of the constitutional political processes by the very individuals who made such a big celebration out of its 200th anniversary to keep as many citizens as possible brainwashed into believing the Big Lie.

The problem is not one of economics (the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth), other than to say there has always been a struggle over the division of labor. There have always been individuals who would prefer to be king, to make the laws, print the money, and collect the taxes, rather than pull the weeds, pour the concrete, milk the cows, or invent or produce anything of real use to the human race.

The problem is a political one, politics being defined by reality as being: person or group A trying to get person or group B to do the will of A. It is a problem of mistaken ideas caused by the systematic miseducation of generations of children taught by schools controlled by an establishment promoting moral relativism—as outlined by professor Allan Bloom’s devastating book, THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND — and seeing to it that real knowledge of politics and economics is reserved for the king’s children only (kings never want competition for their lob”). You see, we don’t have to recognize that slavery and thievery are evil if we can just understand that perpetrators and victims simply have different "value systems!” Then the only thing we really have to fear in society is the closed-mindedness of those who insist on seeing things as good or evil. Moral relativism is great for all kinds of criminals. Maybe that’s why they work so hard to promote it.

There are really only two ways of getting someone else to do what you want them to: 1) actually have a better idea, or 2) resort to coercion (of which deception is a form). Since it is obvious to nearly everyone that government has very few better ideas, it becomes clear that the “art” or “science” of politics is deception. Understanding that, it is easy to see why the average politician is so incredibly mealy-mouthed.

There have always been the parasite/predator types who try to cause other people to do their work for them (remember the story of Tom Sawyer). Slavery is the most logical and coldly efficient extension of the parasite/predator philosophy. Predator propaganda involves a number of evil doctrines such as: ‘God says you should do what I say;” “God says I should be king;” ‘the authority—(misuse of language here, as ‘authority’ is DELEGATED power, and who delegates power to the Almighty?)—of God is manifested on earth as the church/state;” “the law says you have to do what I say;” and “the law says I can have whatever I want that belongs to you.” For atheist and agnostic readers, substitute the words “will of the majority” for the words “will of God,” and you have clarified the parasite/predator position.

Money is supposed to function as a lubricant for barter. Person A has apples and wants to exchange them for wheat. Person B has wheat and wants to exchange it for shoes. Person C has shoes and wants to exchange them for apples. To facilitate the necessary exchanges of commodities in society, it is very desirable that there be some universally acceptable commodity/ies for which all three persons, A, B, and C, can exchange the products of their labor in order to obtain, or “buy,” what they need.

Traditionally, gold, silver, copper, iron, even fish hooks, furs, shells, and tobacco, have served as the mediums of exchange called “money. “ In order to have an honest and workable economy,” it is necessary for the mediums of exchange to actually BE products/commodities with a commensurate amount of human effort inextricably attached to their production. What justice would there be if a man could be forced to do a month’s hard work in the fields and vineyards in exchange for a leaf, a pebble, or a small scrap of paper?

The starting point for misunderstanding money was the invention of special names for the units of monetary measure. As Count Destutt de Tracy recognized, monetary misunderstanding would be much less likely if coins simply bore the specific weight and fineness of the metals they contained. This concept is used on cans and boxes of food, so why not money?

I'd go one step further than Count Destutt de Tracy. In my view the very word "money" is, in and of itself, a per se deception because it is an imaginary banker-invented word which, depending on whether it is commodity-based or political-power-based, totally obfuscates the stark life-and-death difference between honest production/labor and criminal theft.

The term “dollar” is analogous to the term “gallon” or the term “pound.” We don’t go to the grocery store to buy gallons and pounds, which are but useless words without reference to the actual substance being measured. We buy gallons OF MILK and pounds OF POTATOES. So the question arises: we wish to obtain gallons of milk and pounds of potatoes in exchange for dollars OF WHAT?

Any productive person can, in a lifetime, produce vastly more than will be needed in retirement. A gallon of milk earned in youth is a gallon of milk in retirement. A pound of potatoes earned in youth is a pound of potatoes in retirement. A house built in youth is a house for shelter in retirement. So it would be with any honest unit of measure and any honest medium of exchange. There is no morally legitimate reason why a “dollar" earned in youth is not the same dollar in retirement.

Parity” is the word used for expressing the price of one commodity in terms of another. Parities will always be in a state of change in nature and in a free enterprise system (which we profess to have, but do not have). In a year of plenty for apples and scarcity for wheat, it might take four bushels of apples to trade for one bushel of wheat. In a year of scarcity for apples and plenty for wheat, it might take four bushels of wheat to trade for one bushel of apples. And so it goes. In an honest economy (which we do not have), individuals are always free to channel the direction and extent of their efforts into producing whatever commodities they believe will best reward their efforts and meet their needs.

We see “inflation” as a gallon of milk “costing” more “dollars” at the supermarket this month than it did last month. What has actually happened is that the parity between milk and money changed. The more money that is created, the more its parity with all other products in the marketplace changes. The more money there is, the more its exchange “value” (aka purchasing power) depreciates. To see through the paper money fraud, it is necessary to understand that a gallon of milk is what it is, it does for your life what it does, and it is totally irrelevant to clear vision on the point whether it takes one copper "penny" or a wheelbarrow full of trillion "dollar” paper notes to affect a voluntary exchange for that gallon of milk.

When asked whether the Russians would adopt a gold-backed currency to get their economy back on track, a Rand Corporation think tanker recently answered: “they wouldn’t want to adopt a 19th century position.” The statement implies that honest money (i.e. gold, silver, etc., or indeed any real commodity) is somehow a prehistoric dinosaur of an idea, and that we are inevitably headed into a space-age high-tech cashless society. See also Star Trek  IV. The truth is, the Founders knew all about money, credit, and public debt fraud. They had dealt with shaved coins, paper money, credit, debt, interest/usury and bonded indebtedness long before coming to America. They were very experienced in having their economic rights and life blood drained from them by parasite/predators. They drafted the US Constitution with the specific intent of preventing that sort of "legal” thievery in America.

The constitution vested in the states the power to declare whether or not there will be a legal tender, along with the proviso that if they do see fit to declare a legal tender, it shall be nothing but gold and silver coins. Congress was not given the power to declare anything legal tender. Congress was only given power to establish mints where the people could bring the gold and silver they produced to be made into coins of specific weight and fineness. And, for a one percent fee, thats exactly what the first Coinage Act of the post-constitution United States did. Congress was also given the power to regulate the exchange ratio between US coins and foreign money.

At this point, a fairy-tale format seems most effective to illustrate the point:

Once upon a time, the people in Happy Valley were all working hard, producing lots of goods and merrily exchanging their goods with gold and silver coins. It was a time of plenty for all.

Then one day a banker came to town and built a bank with a big vault made of iron and concrete. The banker asked the people if their homes and businesses were as strong and safe as his vault. The people thought not. The banker asked them if they weren’t tired of coins wearing holes in their pockets and of robbers stealing their money. They thought they were. So the people deposited their gold and silver in the bank, and the banker gave them receipts for their deposits.

As time went on, the people noticed that it was sort of inconvenient for buyers to have to go to the bank, turn in their receipts for their coins, go make their purchases, and then the sellers to take what were now their coins to the bank and get new receipts. The people found it was more convenient to simply trade receipts for their exchanges of goods instead of making all the extra trips to the bank.

Eventually the banker noticed that the people had come to think of, and use, the receipts themselves as (if they were) money. He thought to himself what a shame it was to have all that gold and silver in his bank just sitting there. So he had a brilliant criminal idea. He decided to print up a batch of extra receipts and lend them out at interest. He knew he would be able to make a lot more money with his "fractional reserve” system than he could by just lending out the amount of actual deposits in his bank and splitting the interest with the depositors. He told his conscience he was just “stimulating the economy.

The banker's criminal scheme was dependent upon his always keeping enough gold and silver on hand to redeem any receipts that the people might want to redeem. The banker very quickly got enormously rich because he was able to foreclose on lots of people who had only borrowed counterfeit receipts, not some other depositor’s money. But the banker got greedy and printed too many receipts. He didn’t have enough gold and silver to redeem all the receipts that the people, who were starting to see through his scheme, wanted to redeem. The banker was in serious trouble so he turned to his accomplices in government to bail him out.

On April 5, 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 (See also Executive Order 6260), which, under the pretense of forbidding the hoarding of gold, for all practical purposes made it illegal to own more than $100 face-value gold coins. Roosevelt also ramrodded through Congress the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which declared that paper money (the banker's receipts) was no longer redeemable in gold. In the so-called "Gold Clause Cases" — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U. S. 240 (1935), Nortz v. United States, 294 U. S. 317 (1935) and Perry v. United States, 294 U. S. 330 (1935) — the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision led (and written) by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, upheld Roosevelt's treasonous restrictions on the ownership of gold. The banker had successfully and "legally" — accepting arguendo the immense fraud that the U.S. Supreme has the legal and moral authority to turn blatant revisionist-history lies into "truth" and blatant criminality into "legality" — stolen all the people’s gold. In 1963 John F. Kennedy (who opposed the demonetization of silver) was murdered . Immediately upon JFK's death, Lyndon B. Johnson cancelled Executive Order 11110 by which JFK had planned to stimulate the U.S. economy with $4 billion dollars of non-interest-bearing U.S. Treasury silver-certificate notes (as contrasted with interest-bearing "Federal Reserve" currency). In March 1964, Secretary of the Treasury (and close Rockefeller family buddy) C. Douglas Dillon discontinued the redemption of Silver Certificates for Silver Dollars. And paper money was no longer redeemable in silver. You may notice that starting in 1965, U.S. coins which had previously been made of silver, started being made of a Cupro-Nickel alloy. The banker had successfully and "legally" stolen all the people’s silver "under color of law".

At the present time, there are no real commodities backing the paper currency left for the banker to steal. The banker says things like, “modern currencies are backed by the productive resources of a national economy.” The phrase “productive resources” means the people’s labor. So—what the banker is very literally saying, is that modern currencies are backed by the government’s political power to steal all labor and redistribute all products according to its wisdom. The stealing is called “debt monetization, the predators’ “share” is called Interest” on public debt, and the redistributing is called ‘taxation.” The new criminal system operates almost entirely on credit/debt, with only a tiny percentage of “money” or cash consisting of real metal/commodity coins to make the people think the new corrupt system is somehow similar to the old constitutional honest one.

Modern “money” only exists if the banker says you can borrow it. When the banker wants to “stimulate” the economy, he simply lowers the interest rates, which is the same thing as increasing the money supply, since, with lower interest rates, more people want to borrow, which creates more debt, which is now fraudulently called “money.” When Inflation” starts to shake the people’s confidence in the system, the banker simply raises the interest rate, which is the same thing as decreasing the money supply, since, with higher interests rates fewer people want to borrow, which makes for less debt, (and less money to repay existing debt), which is now fraudulently called “money.” Trading and production decline, people lose “jobs, nobody can make the payments they owe the banker, and the banker “reluctantly” forecloses on his latest round of victims/prey.

The unimagineable immensity of the fraud starts with the US Congress which, in a calculated effort to confuse and diffuse political accountablility, delegated its “constitutional” paper money-creation powers to the owners of the commercial banks through the government-regulated-but-for-all-practical-intents- and-purposes-privately-owned-and- operated device known as the Federal Reserve System. Anyone wanting to know the details should study Titles 12 and 31 of the US Code. Additionally, the most comprehensive book Common Sense has seen on the the law related to money is PIECES OF EIGHT, THE MONETARY POWERS AND DISABILITIES OF THE US CONSTITUTION by professor Edwin Vieira.

Every year Congress decides how many numbers (aka “how much money”) will be spent by the government. Every year that number is, by deliberate design, a few hundred billion short of the amount of numbers which will be withheld from the paychecks of the producing class as “income” tax. To make up the artificially created shortfall, the government issues a few hundred billion “dollars” of treasury bonds which the government (in this instance “government” means taxpayer) “borrows” from the banking system. These bonds bear tax free interest to the bond owners, and whenever the banker needs cash, he simply delivers to the US Treasury Department sealed containers of bonds in return for an equal nominal “value” of Federal Reserve notes printed by the government. These notes, which circulate as cash, pay the banker the same tax free interest as the bonds (collateral) he exchanges them for.

Giving the Supreme Court its paper money lie, it is a clear act of deliberate fraud for Congress (which has the UNconstitutionally usurped "power” to print an infinite amount of paper money to fund its projects) to intentionally create a gigantic public debt upon which the average unaware producing-class taxpayer is forced to pay the tax-free interest to elite private individuals. The direct result of the fraud is that the rate of  taxation is literally twice as much as it should be for all government “services” the taxpayers are paying for. The fraud is of such staggering proportions that Congress has even created a Bureau of Public Debt which collects donations from well-meaning-but-hopelessly naive individuals who want to do something about “the deficit.”

Obviously it is impossible for a person to owe himself. It is also impossible for a nation to owe itself. It is only possible for some individuals to owe other individuals and call it “public” debt. The whole system would collapse in an instant if everybody bought public debt fraud bonds and tried to make a “living” from the “interest”. The criminal scheme is entirely dependent on the vast majority of people being willing to work and produce while the criminal parasite/predators do their thing. Of course, only the more affluent benefit from the scheme, because the producing class is forced to spend virtually all of its “income” on food, shelter, and clothing.

It should be obvious to any honest person that a government cannot possibly have a legitimate need for both the power to borrow and the power to create money out of thin air at the same time. It should be clear that a band of very clever criminals has twisted the constitutional powers to borrow (for war bonds), to tax, to “coin money” and “regulate the value thereof,” and to “promote the general welfare” into an engine of elitist thievery.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy per se. It depends on how the wealth was accumulated. America has always been the place where any dreamer, regardless of socio-political-economic status, could come up with a better mouse trap, manufacture it, market it, and reap the economic rewards of ingenuity. That’s what free enterprise is supposed to be all about And that’s part of what has been ruined by the current criminal system of plunder. See the movie TUCKER. What is suicidally wrong, however, is to use the power of money to create a monopoly on justice (courts), law (legislatures), political power (media), information (education), philosophy (church corporations), and means of production (land), so as to make the parasite/ predator class richer simply by way of raw political monetary power, without the necessity of having to invent or produce anything of real use, or having to compete in any area other than crime and deception.

Common Sense is not advancing any conspiracy theories. While the Big Lie was very conspiratorial and organized in its origins, it is perpetuated by the simple genie-out-of-the-bottle fact that any person who seriously and effectively opposes it (especially judges, lawyers, and legislators) will meet with economic and political, if not physical, destruction. So it’s far easier to feed one’s family by cooperating with the fraud.

Nor is Common Sense suggesting that technological research is bad. Computers and account-holder cards can just as easily be used in an honest monetary system as a dishonest one, after all, the computer is only a tool. The all- important key is whether the numbers (of “money”) in a person’s account represent a specifically measured amount of ALREADY PRODUCED EXISTING WEALTH (products, commodities) that the account holder can, and does, possess legal title to, or whether the numbers in that same account represent endlessly fluctuating increments of the political power of diabolically clever, totally ruthless, and professionally charismatic liars, thieves, and murderers to steal the labor of the entire producing class and redistribute the produce of that labor according to what special interests have the most clout with judges, legislators, presidents, and governors.

It is easy to see why the one group who will always have the most political clout is the elite owners and beneficiaries of the magic money machine. The rest of us have to exchange our very real sweat, talent, education, skills, etc., for the money with which to finance political campaigns to oppose corrupt public officials. The precise point of expropriation is where we exchange something real for an illusion: labor and products for political paper money. No matter how much the producing class produces, and no matter how hard we try to affect change, the money manipulators can—with no effort— print up enough money to outbid us in nature’s marketplace for political candidates and campaigns.

Since the government can simply print money and has no real need of taxes, the job of the revenue-collecting agencies is no longer to collect taxes. Their real purpose now is to channel the direction and extent of human effort by controlling where money flows to. Their job, along with judges and prosecutors, is to act as enforcement goon squad for criminal legislatures.

Has anyone ever thought to ask why the Internal Revenue “Service” and the “Justice” Department are so zealous in the caricaturization and persecution of so-called “tax protesters” or “tax cheats” when, at the same time, they proudly proclaim(on nationwideTV) to have many billions of “dollars” of unclaimed refund checks? Has anyone thought to ask why the criminals in Congress jailed George Hansen and yet did nothing to Geraldine Ferraro, whose alleged transgressions were vastly worse? Of course the fact that Hansen was seriously taking the IRS to political task and Ferraro was not might be pure coincidence. Yeah, right!

(NOTE: For more information about tax cheats and political vendettas routinely carried out by various government agencies against individuals who attempt to effectively expose and oppose government lawlessness, please read the rest of this edition of Common Sense.)

Cash (even fraudulent Federal Reserve notes as they now exist) guarantees economic privacy from government criminals. The idea of economic privacy is anathema to predators and is why they are so vocal on the gun and drug issues and why they are pressing so hard for a cashless society. They want their cut of everyone else’s productivity. They don’t want anyone but themselves to have economic privacy and independence. They want to eliminate the “inefficient” overhead of producing cash (whether coins or paper), and the best way to accomplish that is to use the scare tactic of saying drug traffickers use cash. Of course the subliminal message we are supposed to swallow is that to be pro-cash or pro-choice on the 2nd Amendment is the same as being pro-drugs. See also the article titled "America’s Own Noriegas" in this edition of Common Sense.

Ultimately, technology can present one very dramatic problem if we do not put an end to the Big Lie before the predators put an end to cash and economic privacy. As robotics produces an ever larger percentage of goods and services, human labor may become superfluous. The logical implication of this problem is that labor will hold no legal title to any property, commodities, or means of production (land, etc.). The robot-owning money manipulators will then be free to exterminate all “surplus” people and adjust human population according to their whim.

The US Supreme Court is happy to enforce the proposition that we don’t have a constitutional right to an honest monetary and tax structure, but it’s a safe bet we will very shortly have a constitutional “right” to die, unless, of course, you happen to be a political prisoner whose decision to fast to death as a protest might generate public opinion unfavorable to the government. In that case you will be fed by force.

For all their wisdom and noble intent, hindsight suggests the Framers made three important mistakes: 1) they failed to confront the issue of self-evident immorality of slavery, which has the effect of delegitimizing the constitution in the eyes of many racial minorities; 2) they used the word ‘value” in the the phrase “regulate the value thereof” when they obviously meant to regulate the “exchange ratio” or "exchange rate" between the money of account of the US and that of foreign countries. Value (aka use) is an individual subjective notion, totally impossible of regulation—e.g. liver might be worth $100/lb to some readers, but you couldn’t pay the editor of Common Sense $100/lb to eat it!—but the mere use of the word "value" gave predator judges the opening their bankster buddies wanted, to demonetize gold, silver, and all other commodities, and replace them with the monetization of artificially-created fraudulent debt.

3) In not expecting judges to lie about the constitution, the Framers made the Supreme Court justices appointed for life instead of directly elected by the people. This has resulted in the rewriting of the constitution by "interpretation” instead of by amendment. The will of judges is now the supreme law of the land, not the intent of the Framers, and not the will of he electorate. If the constitution is to ever regain its status and proper function, the people must be allowed to interpret it by directly electing all judicial officers, highest to lowest.

Fairness demands it be said that not all government employees are parasite/ predators. It must also be noted, however, that any who are not speaking directly and honestly to this issue are accessories to the crime. It also seems quite reasonable to say that (from a purely moral viewpoint) any judge, prosecutor, “law” enforcement officer, or tax bureaucrat who derives any personal pleasure (of course they all pretend not to) from willfully and knowingly enforcing the Big Lie, after having sworn to uphold and faithfully defend and carry out the intent of the US Constitution, is a lawless monster who, like any other common criminal, and like Thomas Paine proposed, deserves to die from victim self-defense during the perpetration of his crime.

In a recent editorial column discussing Robert Bork’s new book, THE TEMPTING OF AMERICA, economist Thomas Sowell said: "If the public understood what is happening in the courts and in the law schools, there would be armed and angry mobs marching toward both institutions—and no humane person would want to see what happened when they got there.” Common Sense agrees.

There are no "liberal”or”conservative” aspects to thievery, mayhem, and murder. There is only specialized jargon such as legalese and bureaucratese, deceptive grammar-aborting gobbledy-gook which justifies the evil perpetrated by dangerous and violent psychopathic predators in power—the king is none the less violent because he uses soldiers, police, judges, prosecutors, legislators, bureaucrats and “news” media to perpetrate thievery, extortion, mayhem and murder under the forms of law enforcement” and “national security” in the name of civilized order, freedom and justice. To the money- monopoly criminals, it matters not the slightest whether a “liberal” administration borrows money for entitlement programs, or whether a “conservative” administration borrows money for military “defense,” or for space-age ‘progress. It only matters that they get to collect the interest on artificially created and fraudulent public debt.

The law, as understood by the people, and as justified by people like Adam Smith, John Locke, and Frederic Bastiat, is theoretically supposed to defend the inalienable rights of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not supposed to serve as an engine of elitist thievery, extortion, mayhem, and murder on behalf of those individuals in power.

The ultimate moral choice for those who aspire to use the violence of “law” to enforce their personal agendas and rule the lives of others (in the name of public “service”) lies between two questions: 1) Is it a greater crime to allow a sick, helpless, unproductive person to die from starvation, exposure, disease, etc. , or 2) is it a greater crime to take all property, liberty and life from a productive person in an effort to force him to help the helpless? Common Sense dictates that the former “crime" is a passive one, while the latter is an active one. Even Sowell’s “tangled jungle of words” called "law” dictates that an active role in crime is a more serious offense than a passive role.

The plain-English key to understanding law is to determine whether, in any given situation, it is acting as defender or aggressor. And that is a discussion parasite/predator types will avoid at any and all costs, because if it is admitted that every being in the universe has the inalienable right to try to preserve its existence by defending itself from attacks by others, it must be admitted that people have every bit as much right to defend themselves from criminals who use "law” to perpetrated their crimes as they do to defend themselves from criminals who use material weapons. That idea is anathema to predators who camouflage reality with phrases such as “balancing the interests” and who view all life but their own as having value solely to the extent that it is able to be controlled by them and be made to produce for them.

The ultimate hard choice for those individuals who do not aspire to rule the lives of others can also be summed up in two questions:

1) Would you rather live in slavery or die by torture for refusing to work for your would-be masters? 2) Should the individual use violence or nonviolence in self-defense against government criminals? These are intense and exclusively personal moral choices. For anyone who does not possess an unshakeable faith in a just Creator and eternal spiritual life after physical death, they must be almost unthinkable and horrifying choices. On the brighter side, as long as the American people continue to enforce the 2nd Amendment against the government, perhaps they can postpone some of the gut-wrenching moral choices that, as history guarantees us with absolute certainty, do lie ahead.

Common Sense would offer one of Christ’s admonitions to every person who aspires to use the violence of government and the deception of law to implement their personal agenda, whether they are called "liberal” or “conservative: Sell all you possess and give it to the poor, before you start stealing from everybody else under the pretense that you’re doing it for the sick, the helpless, and the down-trodden—or under the pretense that you’re saving the world from totalitarian tyranny’s attack on free enterprise and private property. The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” makes no distinction between burglars who use law and burglars who use crowbars.

If the human race is to avoid self-extinction by economic cannibalism, we must put an end to the Big Lie. That starts when ever-increasing numbers of individuals stop believing in it. Just say NO to government criminals. Contrary to the rhetoric of professionally charismatic liars in government who only acknowledge the problem now that nearly everyone knows it’s there, the American people are not concerned about “the deficit.” They are concerned about prospects of a radically reduced standard of living. They are concerned about runaway taxation. They are concerned about involuntary servitude. They are concerned about corrupt government. The American people want honest money. They want the demonetization of debt. Any fool can see that debt and money are not supposed to be the same thing. And anyone can see there is a huge difference between “balancing the budget” (which allows the elitist thieves to keep what they’ve stolen) and demonetizing debt and repudiating the fraudulent “national” debt.

We have no need of a “kinder, gentler, America,” especially when those hollow words come from the mouth of a former head of one of America’s Gestapo-like secret police agencies. The vast majority of Americans are already kind gentle, generous, decent, hard-working, ingenious, liberty-and-justice-for-all-loving, salt-of-the-earth-type people who want nothing more than to be let alone and given the opportunity to take care of their families and loved ones. We just need to stop letting violent government predators ruin our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. We need equal access to the means of production (such as land). We need equal citizenship in the courts. We need equal citizenship, period. We need a nationwide strike, a complete economic shutdown that will starve out and dethrone the predators. People everywhere want real substantive justice, economic opportunity, and economic self- determination. They want an end to the Big Lie.

ADDENDUM - 10/21/08

There are any number of excellent videos on the subject, for which this essay may serve as a dispositive documented  foundation. Among the best I've seen are: "America: Fascism To Freedom", "Fiat Empire: Why the Federal Reserve System violates the U.S.Constitution", Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud) (1999) , "Secret Government: The 'National Security' State", "Money As Debt", and "Money As Debt 2". Check them out! I think they're absolutely fascinating. — JRW

2ND ADDENDUM - 12/09/10

It is sufficient to prove my point about judicial lying to refer to the writings of two brilliant "conservative" world-class judicial scholars, Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork. Both men consider themselves to be believers in what is commonly called the "originalism" school of judicial thought. In other words, they believe the Constitution should be interpreted to mean exactly what the Framers intended it to mean at the time they wrote it.

Justice Scalia freely, openly, and very matter-of-factly described the process of judicial lying in his speech titled, "Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way", which he gave at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005:

"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people...If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted...."

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the 'Living Constitution,' judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such."

"It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, 'Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.' We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: 'The Constitution is a living document.' You know, it morphs."

"Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted...."

In the last paragraph of his magnificent concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago - 08-1521 (2010), while surgically eviscerating Justice Steven's dissenting opinion, Scalia clearly infers that the Supremes have usurped power from the people in sneaky ways. Here is that last paragraph which shows why, even with all their faults, I prefer the Right to the Left:

“And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which ‘majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,’ post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life­-tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53 —with ‘the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,’ ibid. — makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.”

On page 155 of the hardbound version of his book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (ISBN-10: 0844739782 ISBN-13: 978-0844739786), Judge Bork said:

"The question of precedent is particularly important, because, as Professor Henry Monaghan of Columbia University law school notes, 'much of the existing constitutional order is at variance with what we know of the original understanding.'5 Some commentators have argued from this obvious truth that the approach of original understanding is impossible or fatally compromised, since they suppose it would require the Court to declare paper money unconstitutional and overturn the centralization accomplished by abandoning restrictions on congressional powers during the New Deal. There is in these instances a great gap between the original understanding of the constitutional structure and where the nation stands now. But the conclusion does not follow. To suppose that it does is to confuse the descriptive with the normative. To say that prior courts have allowed, or initiated, deformations of the Constitution is not enough to create a warrant for present and future courts to do the same thing."

"All serious constitutional theory centers upon the duties of judges, and that comes down to the question: What should the judge decide in the case now before him? Obviously, an originalist judge should not deform the Constitution further. Just as obviously , he should not attempt to undo all mistakes made in the past. Whatever might have been the proper ruling shortly after the Civil War, if a judge today were to decide that paper money is unconstitutional, we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian. At the center of the philosophy of original understanding , therefore, there must stand some idea of when the judge is bound by prior decisions and when he is not."

What I find most striking is that, at least from a grammatically correct point of view, Judge Bork obviously meant to include himself when he used the words "we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian". In other words, one of America's most brilliant "conservative" judicial scholars believes that any judge today who told the truth about the provable unconstitutionality of paper money in a decision s/he wrote should be locked up in an insane asylum. That offends my sense of morality, and it offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Because, with Justice Story, I consider the U.S. Constitution to be a binding contract between two parties, the gubmint and the citizenry, I categorically reject the criminal notion (insane in and of itself) that a person should be locked up in an insane asylum for believing that one of the parties (gubmint) to a two-party social contract/compact should not be allowed to simply unilaterally alter the terms of the contract for personal financial gain.

The ramifications of The Big Lie and the support it receives from both "left" and "right" wing elites are enormous and catastrophic. It forces all of the ignorant police powers of the nation, including both the U.S. military and the state and local civilian police departments to function as attackers of, and traitors to, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of functioning as its upholders and defenders — as to a man and woman they swear an oath to be and do. This also makes them the de facto enemies and criminal attackers of the citizenry whose labor is being unconstitutionally stolen via strategically deliberate unequal protection of law.6

All this happened without any type of legitimate rule-of-law amendment to the U.S. Constitution per Article V. And that's supposed to be OK with everybody? That a criminal cabal gets to simply create money out of thin air by making computer entries — (they don't even have to print paper money)— while everybody else has to exchange their sweat, labor, education, skills and time to get relatively small amounts of that same money is supposed to be OK with everybody? Give me a break!

3RD ADDENDUM - 12/09/10

If Wikileaks were really serious about effectively embarrassing the disordered criminals who call themselves "government", why don't they leak this essay?

4TH ADDENDUM - 8/18/11

Edwin Vieira Interview with James Turk

End The Fed! - Why the Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished!

Part 1/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

Part 2/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

Part 3/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

Part 4/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

Part 5/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

For your convenience, I transcribed Dr. Vieira's anecdote about how law is taught, and linked a PDF file HERE.

The Attorney who Defended Joe Banister - Attorney Jeff Dickstein - 2007 - YouTube video

The Attorney who Defended Joe Banister - Attorney Jeff Dickstein - 2008 - YouTube video

Jeffrey Dickstein Interview 16th Amendment and Taxes Part One

JEFF DICKSTEIN (lawyer): (at about 5:25 into vid) “All a lawyer means is that you paid a lot of money to a university to be brainwashed that the judges decide what the law is. When I was in law school, we never read the Constitution. We read decisions of judges telling us what the Constitution meant.” (at about 6:00 into vid) "Well, there is no [U.S.] Constitution anymore. It's just an idle word. It doesn't exist. It's been flushed down the toilet. It doesn't exist. There's no 1st Amendment. There's no 2nd Amendment. There's no 4th Amendment. There's no 5th Amendment. There's no 6th Amendment. It just doesn't exist."

FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution - YouTube video

Money As Debt - by Canadian artist, Paul Grignon - YouTube video

Money As Debt 2 - by Canadian artist, Paul Grignon

How To Take Our Country Back I - Strategy - YouTube video

NOTE TO CHRISTIANS: The Bible forbids dishonest money (aka "fluctuating mediums of exchange"): Lev 19:36, Deut 25:13, Pr 16:11, Pr 20:10, Pr 20:23, Mic 6:11, 1 Thes 4:6. The Bible forbids usury (aka "interest"): Ex 22:25, Lev 25:35-37, De 15:6, De 23:19,20, Ne 5:7-11, Ps 15:5, Pr 22:7, Pr 28:8, Isa 24:1-4, Eze 18:13,17, Eze 22:12. For the purposes of the Bible, "usury" & "interest" are synonymous. The Bible calls 1% interest "usury". See Ne 5:7-11. For those so-called "Christian" usury lovers who want to play cutesy pie with the word "brother", as the Bible applies that word to usury, I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) which Jesus told the cutesy pie, self-justifying lawyer who asked him "who is my neighbor?" For those so-called "Christian" usury lovers and "gubmint" lovers who like to misuse Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar" (Mt 22:16-22, Mk 12:13-17, Lu 20:19-26) quote to justify paying whatever level of taxes politicians see fit to demand, Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar" quote is explained by Matthew 17:24-27 and Mark 11: 27-33. Jesus was obviously NOT pro-taxes or pro-"gubmint"! Jesus knew better than anybody that according to such biblical passages as Psalms 24:1, 50:10-12, 89:11and Haggai 2:8, everything belongs to God, even all the silver, all the gold, and any other metals coins might possibly be made of. Under these scriptures, Christ’s answer could have been that the metal in the coin in question belonged to God, and only Caesar's image, combined with the sin-based belief of gullible gubmint followers in that graven image and established political order, belonged to Caesar. Yet Jesus did not give either a “yes” or a “no” answer. So what exactly was it he did? The Pharisees had asked Jesus a wannabe-clever political question to trap him. So Jesus gave them a political non-answer to their question. As a practical matter, Jesus recommended paying taxes on a case-by-case basis under the "lest we offend" principle. Jesus' "lest we offend" doctrine meant that he never wanted to push any person farther from God just because they might be ignorant (or illiterate in the U.S. Constitution, Scripture, economics or history) and hold mistaken beliefs. Then there is the matter of Jesus' parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30, Lu 19:12-27). Usury lovers10 like to pretend that Mt 25:27 and Lu 19:23 meant that Jesus was saying usury is acceptable to God. But you don't get to (see Isa 5:20, Isa 28:13, 1 Thes 5:21, etc) cherry-pick two verses in the Bible and use an IMPLICATION to negate all the places where usury is EXPRESSLY prohibited. When that sort of thing (an apparent conflict) happens, the doctrine of "conflict of laws" takes over, and you have to interpret the verses in question so they don't conflict. In other words, if there is any possible interpretation that renders the apparent conflict to be harmonious, that is the correct interpretation. Accordingly, since you can't logically change — "I am the LORD, I change not" (see Malachi 3:6, Nu 23:19, Ps 102:27, Jas 1:17) — the EXPRESS prohibitions, the logical INFERRED meaning of Jesus' exhortations in Mt 25:27 and Lu 19:23 is that Jesus was saying that it would have been a lesser sin to put the money out to usury than to bury it until the master's return, as the unfaithful cowardly servant did. END OF NOTE TO CHRISTIANS.

_______________________________________

FOOTNOTES

1. It is worth noting that Findlaw.com does not have the Hepburn v. Griswold 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870) decision, while Justia.com does have the case (at least as of  November 7, 2007 — JRW). The question arises: why doesn't Findlaw want you to know about Hepburn, while Justia has done an honest job of preserving history?

2. From "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787," published by Yale University Press, edited by Max Farrand, ISBN 0-300-0447-8 (cloth), ISBN-10: 0300000812, ISBN-13: 978-0300000818 (paper).

3. Revelations 13:16-17:  "16. And he [the beast - JRW] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

4. See, e.g., Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16, Proverbs 20:10, Micah 6:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:6.

Since everybody can see the self-evident injustice/thievery of buying big bushels, gallons, and quarts, pounds and ounces, and selling little bushels, gallons, and quarts, pounds and ounces — why is it so hard for most people to see the  self-evident injustice/thievery of buying with little (inflated debt-based paper) "dollars" and selling with  big (gold or silver metal coin, or notes redeemable in gold and silver) "dollars?" Since "dollars" (even with the fraudulently meaningless monetary name) are a unit of measure, the question remains: "dollars" OF WHAT? From the above essay, we can be certain what the Founder's opinion about the SUBSTANCE of dollars was supposed to be.

Remember, in any economy, all we humans are actually doing is trading our labor. That's why gold and silver are generally considered to be more "valuable" than iron: you have to dig up a lot more (tons of) rock to make an ounce of gold or silver than you do an ounce of iron. The man who produced an ounce of gold or silver had to spend/lose a lot more hours of work than the man who produced an ounce of iron. Gold and silver (any REAL COMMODITY for that matter) "dollars" have a measurable amount of labor inextricably attached to their production. Fraudulent debt-based political "dollars" do not. The number of debt-based politcal paper (actually mere blips on a computer monitor), is whatever the corrupt lying-through-their-teeth politicians in Congress say it's going to be. And Congress has delegated that power to the Federal Reserve, which increases the "dollar" supply by lowering interest rates so more people will borrow "dollars" into existence, and decreases the "dollar" supply by raising interest rates so fewer people will borrow, more people will lose their property due to foreclosures, dot.com "bubbles," home mortgage "bubbles", and "market adjustments" — while the corporate owners of the legal-tender-based central banking "system," thanks mainly to M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819),  make out like the Lex-Luthorian arch-bandits the Founders knew they would be.

Cool scam, huh?! — if you happen to have a fascist (facism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control), neo-feudalistic world view, that is.

5. Note 1 in Bork's book Tempting: Monahan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 723, 725-27 (1988) (“The relevant inquiry must focus on the public understanding of the language when the Constitution was developed. Hamilton put it well: ‘whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual & established rules of construction.’” [emphasis in the original; footnotes omitted]).
Note 4 in the book: See also Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, 853 (1989) (It is a canard to interepret Marshall’s observation in McCulloch as implying that our interpretation of the Constitution must change from age to age. “The real implication was quite the opposite: Marshall was saying that the Constitution had to be interpreted generously because the power conferred upon Congress under it had to be broad enough to serve not only the needs of the federal government originally discerned but also the needs that might arise in the future. If constitutional interpretations could be adjusted as changing circumstances required, a broad initial interpretation would have been unnecessary.”).
Note 22 in the book: “Monaghan, supra note 1, at 727.”
Note 23 in the book: Id; see also Bittker, The Bicentennial of the Jurisprudence of Original Intent: The Recent Past, 77 Calif. L. Rev. 235 (1989).

6. Here's what the fascist7, neo-feudalist Taker "government" (aka "political8") classes don't want the Maker productive classes to know: If the employer-owner of a plumbing shop charges a customer $40/hour for one of his employee- plumber's time, but pays pays his employee- plumber $20/hr, the owner of the plumbing shop has realized a $20/hr profit, or gain (aka "INCOME"), from the labor of another person: his employee- plumber. The only loss incurred by the plumbing shop owner was the $20/hr wage he paid his employee in exchange for the labor purchased. Obviously, the plumbing shop owner didn't incur any loss on the extra $20/hr of profit paid by the customer for the plumber's time — it was 100% profit, or gain (aka "INCOME"). To the employee-plumber, however, the $20/hr wage he gets paid by his employer, the owner of the plumbing shop, is COMPENSATION for his LOSS of time, education, effort, and skills. It is a free-will-based voluntary zero-sum exchange in which he receives the COMPENSATION of $20/hr for the LOSS of time, education, effort, and skills he incurred. The only way the employee-plumber's wage of $20/hr of COMPENSATION can be logically (albeit fraudulently) taxed as "INCOME" (aka profit, gain) is if the monetary value of his labor, his LOSS of time, education, effort, and skills, is fraudulently calculated to be ZERO.

In other words, the so-called "income tax," as fraudulently and unconstitutionally enforced by the predatory statist children of hell, deliberately accords ZERO monetary value to a person's own labor. From both a logical, technical, and de facto point of view, that means that human labor is not accorded a monetary value unless another person pays money for it. Therefore, to the purchasers of labor (the employer classes), labor is accorded a monetary value which is deductible as overhead, a cost of "doing business" (which is why common "law" doesn't specifically define the word "business"). But to the owners/sellers of labor (aka the hoi polloi wage-earning employee classes), their labor is accorded by the criminal "income tax" cabal as having ZERO monetary value. In every sense of the word, logical, technical, moral, legal, political, and de facto, that simply means that, under the so-called "income tax" system, THE OWNERS/SELLERS OF LABOR DO NOT "LEGALLY" OWN THEIR OWN LABOR. Hence the term "wage slave", a 100% accurate appellation/euphemism under the satanic and feudal "income tax" system.

Here's how the self-evident unequal protection of law between the buyers and sellers of labor works: The voluntary exchange between the buyers ("employers") and sellers ("employees") of labor is a ZERO SUM exchange. The money paid for the labor is worth EXACTLY the amount of labor paid/exchanged for the money or the exchange could/would not have voluntarily taken place. In the exchange, the buyer of the labor incurs a loss: the money ("wages") paid for the labor purchased. The seller of the labor also incurs a loss: the labor (including the inextricable monetary value thereof) paid for the money purchased. The buyer's/employer's loss (money equal in value to the labor it is exchanged for) is deductible as a cost/expense of "doing business". The seller'/employee's loss (labor whose inextricable monetary value is equal to the money it is exchanged for) is not deductible. On its very face, that constitutes blatant, arrogant, self-evident prima facie discrimination and unequal protection of law which has NO logical/rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. The suspect class is labor, and, were the federal judges not a bunch of classist, elitist liars, precisely because there IS an identifiable suspect class (labor), the so-called "federal question" at issue would normally be examined under what is called the "strict scrutiny" rule. But when America's judiciaries are populated by lying traitors to the U.S. Constitution who are bought and paid for by the Shadow Aristocracy "globalist" arch-criminal bankster elite, citizens who try to stand up against this immense and inexcusable injustice are routinely fined and imprisoned — and in some actual cases, even tortured and murdered.

7. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag9 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions.

8. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

9. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.

10. On page 795 in my Amplified Bible, as a footnote on the word "interest" in Psalm 15:5, is found the following: "Israel was originally not a mercantile people, and the law aimed at an equal diffusion of wealth, not at enriching some while others were poor. The spirit of the law still is obligatory--not to take advantage of a brother's distress to lend at interest ruinous to him--but the letter of the law is abrogated, and a loan at moderate interest is often of great service to the poor. Hence, it is referred to by our Lord in parables, apparently as a lawful as well as recognized usage. (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23)" (A.R. Fausset, Bible Encyclopedia and Dictionary). At least one biography of A.R. Fausset is online. His statement, "the spirit of the law still is obligatory ... but the letter of the law is abrogated" is, simply put, utterly ignorant, and so dangerous as to perhaps even be Satan-inspired. It totally ignores all "I am the Lord, I change not" scriptures. Fausset apparently knew very little about human law and its doctrine of "conflict of laws" as that logically applies (per 1 Thes 5:21) to interpretation of Scripture. Sin is sin. Neither the letter nor the spirit of that God-based fact can ever change. Human nature does not change. Coveting your neighbor's goods and trying steal his labor through clever devices will always be anti-self-ownership, aka "sin". America's 26 USC 501(c)(3) pulpits are actually assisting Caesar in his tyranny, murder, theft and sin IN THE NAME OF GOD! America's ecclesiastical politicians need to read "In Caesar's Grip", by Peter Kershaw, and change their stinking little lives. They need to fall on their knees, per 2 Chronicles 7:14, beg God's forgiveness, repudiate 26 USC 501(c)(3) and start teaching their congregations THE WHOLE TRUTH about mediums of exchange (aka "money"), usury and gubmint found in the Bible.

ShareThis