Monday, October 17, 2011

Gold, if it's backed by anything at all...

"Compared with something like the U.S. dollar..."

...Simple. The modern financial system is a complete joke. Money is conjured from thin air, backed by false promises from bankrupt governments. Then there’s the fractional reserve swindle, centrally planned interest rates, government-produced inflation, manufactured statistics, insane credit and sovereign debt bubbles, etc.

It’s a total fraud… and like any good con, it depends on just that: confidence.

So what to do…?

If you live in a broke western nation, whatever you do, don’t store your gold in a bank safety deposit box. Bankers are unpaid government spies, so you might as well hang a sign up that says “please seize my assets”.
(click here for a full report)


Ya' take a chisel, mate, and ya' cut that dollar four times with a hammer blow. That give ya' eight bits, no? Two bit, four bits, eight bits - a dollah...?

Still don't get it? Ya' gonna be doin' some shippin' over before ya' see any a' that there Liberty, ya' unnastan' what I'm sayin'? Ya' don't unnastan', now be the time to be findin' out what I'm a'talkin' about, ovah heah, shipmate...

3. What do American history and the Constitution identify as the "dollar"?

Reference to history clears away the confusion of present-day politics, by showing beyond cavil that the "dollar" is a specific coin, containing 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver, and nothing else.

a. The "dollar" in the Constitution. Both Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of and the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution refer explicitly to the "dollar" - in the one case, permitting "a Tax or duty * * * not exceeding ten dollars for each Person" the States saw fit "to admit" prior to 1808; and, in the other, guaranteeing trial by jury "[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” The Constitution does not define this "dollar.” But, in the late 1700s, no explicit definition was necessary: Everyone conversant with political and economic affairs knew that the word imported the silver Spanish milled dollar.

Indeed, had not such an understanding been catholic, powerful contending forces might never have agreed to support the Constitution at all. For example, the traditional interpretation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 is that it elliptically refers to the slave-trade, and represents a compromise between pro- and anti-slavery forces that was vital to ratification of the Constitution. Self-evidently, those in the pro-slavery faction would never have accepted the "Tax or duty" phrase unless they already knew that the "dollar" identified as the measure of the "Tax" had a fixed value, and what its value was. Otherwise, by monetary manipulation aimed at increasing the purchasing-power of the "dollar,” anti-slavery forces in Congress might have eliminated the slave-trade altogether.

Similarly, the proponents of the fundamental right to jury-trial in the Seventh Amendment would never have accepted the "dollar"-limitation on jury- trials unless they already knew that the "dollar" had a fixed value, and what its value was. Otherwise, monetary manipulation might have eliminated common-law juries altogether. Yet both these groups also were aware of the doctrine that, if Congress had discretion to change the value of the unit of money, there could be no legal limits to the changes it might make. Therefore, their support of these provisions inferentially establishes what a literal reading of them straightforwardly suggests: to wit, that the noun "dollar" refers, not to a mere name applicable to whatever Congress whimsically might decide thereafter to call a "dollar,” but instead to a particular coin so familiar in American experience as to be beyond political transmogrification.

No comments:

Post a Comment