ESSENTIAL HISTORY: ‘FOREVER DEBT’ FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM INVENTED TO PAY INTEREST WITHOUT EVER EVER EVER REPAYING DEBT – DEFINITION OF ‘PONZI SCHEME’

Washington's Blog
February 27, 2016

The US federal government debt is now $19 trillion, having risen over a trillion each year of the Obama administration

Ponzi scheme: criminal fraud of paying existing “investors” only and always from new “investors.” Collapse occurs without new “investors” and/or existing “investors” panic to cash-in.

The US Federal Reserve is based on the 1694-created Bank of Englandbecause this model allows government finance with debt that is never meant to be repaid. It is an “investment” model that pays interest guaranteed through tax collection. Its invention was to finance England’s government and military in a history of continuous centuries of war.

It’s cleverness allowed British finance to fund a short-term empire over rival European powers.

Although we can appreciate this historical manipulation, this is a Ponzi scheme because the system collapses without new “investors” of government debt securities.

This Ponzi scheme model is our US Federal Reserve System today:

• not “US Federal” but  admitted privately-owned,
• without “Reserve” other than creating what is used for money out of nothing,
• not a “System” but literal criminal fraud.

US Treasury securities of bills, notes, and bonds continuously mature and must be repaid if the owner chooses to cash-in rather than renew the debt security. The US federal government debt is now $19 trillion, having risen over a trillion each year of the Obama administration.

This amount of total debt compared with ~100 million US households means that the average US household of ~$50,000 annual income owes ~$190,000 each should investors withdraw from this US government funding scheme. If your household income is more than $50,000, then use this ratio to estimate your share for repayment; for example, a $150,000 annual family income would owe $570,000 if US Treasury holders requested repayment rather than continue rolling-over their loans to the US government.

Obviously, this system is at risk to at least devalue family’s existing savings to the degree the public reverses considering this Ponzi scheme as a “wise investment strategy.”

The great news is that the top three benefits each of monetary reform andpublic banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly-instantly.

Please read the above sentence a second time, then verify the following factual claims to confirm its objective accuracy.

Monetary reform is the creation of debt-free money by government for the direct payment of public goods and services. Creating money as a positive number is an obvious move from our existing Robber Baron-era system of only creating debt owed to privately-owned banks (a negative number) as what we use for money. Our Orwellian “non-monetary supply” of adding negative numbers forever causes today’s tragic-comic increasing and unpayable total debt. You learned these mechanics of positive and negative numbers in middle school, and already have the education and life experience to conclude with Emperor’s New Clothes absolute certainty that accelerating total debt is the opposite of having money. As a National Board Certified and Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teacher, I affirm this is also exactly what is taught to all economics students.

The public benefits of reversing this creature of Robber Barons are game-changing and nearly-instant. We the People must demand these, as .01% oligarchs have no safe way to do so without admission of literal criminal fraud by claiming that debt is its opposite of money.

The top 3 game-changing benefits of monetary reform:

1. We pay the national debt in proportion to removing private banks’ ability to create what we use for money as debt in order to prevent inflation. We retire national debt forever.
2. We fully fund infrastructure that returns more economic output than investment cost for triple upgrades: the best infrastructure we can imagine, up to full-employment, and lower overall costs.
3. We stop the ongoing Robber Barons who McKinsey’s Chief Economist documents having ~$30 TRILLION in tax havens, and the Fed finding the US top seven banks creating shell companies to hide $10 trillion. This amount is about 30 times needed to end all global poverty, which has killed more people since 1995 than all wars and violence in all human history.

Public banking creates at-cost and in-house credit to pay for public goods and services without the expense and for-profit interest of selling debt-securities. North Dakota has a public bank for at-cost credit that results in it being the only state with annual increasing surpluses rather than deficits.

Top 3 game-changing benefits of public banking:

1. a state-owned bank could abundantly fund all state programs and eliminate all taxes with just a 5% mortgage and credit card.
2. a state-owned bank could create in-house and at-cost credit to fund infrastructure. This cuts nominal costs in half because, as you know, selling debt securities typically doubles the cost. For example, where I live we’re still dismantling the old Bay Bridge in NoCal from the upgrade that cost $6 billion, but the debt-service costs will add another $6 billion when it’s all paid.
3. CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) stash “rainy day” funds no longer required with a credit line from a public bank. In addition, the so-called “retirement funds” currently deliver net returns of just a few percent on good years, and negative returns on bad years (here, here). California’s ~14,000 various government entities’ CAFRs have a sampled-data total estimate of $8 trillion in surplus taxpayer assets ($650,000 non-disclosed assets per household, among California’s ~12.5 million households).
4. Read the entire article

Justice Antonin Scalia Opposed a Constitutional Convention

JBS.org
February 24, 2016


"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?" - Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17, 2014 (Click here to see video of Scalia's statement.)

In a recent email from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States application for a "limited convention," Coburn used a supportive quote attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The quote, as it appeared in the email, reads:
 

"If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let's take it." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia~

Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the late justice, especially since Coburn's citation says "Justice." However, this is misleading.

Although no date was provided with the quote, the quote comes from remarks delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute on May 23, 1979 - seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, "A Constitutional Convention: How Well Would It Work?" and was moderated by former ABC News chief John Charles Daly.

Scalia was not a justice of the Supreme Court when he said those words, but rather a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. At the time, Scalia also worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which he was addressing when he spoke in favor of the idea of a limited convention.

However, contrary to Senator Coburn's attempt to protray Scalia as a supporter of an Article V constitutional convention, the quote he uses from 1979 does not accurately reflect Scalia's recent views on the subject of a modern-day constitutional convention.

On April 17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on an episode of the Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club Journalism Institute, the George Washington University, and the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of their program was "A Conversation about the First Amendment."

During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question from Seth Dawson of the Office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding Justice John Paul Stevens's recent suggestion of a constitutional amendment to modify the Second Amendment. The question was, "If you could amend the Constitution in one way, what would it be, and why?" The first to answer was Scalia, who replied (click on above image for video):
 

I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?

Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution and speaking in the context of amendments he clearly warned against the notion of convening a convention, which is the second method for amending the Constitution under Article V.

Following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, during the question-and-answer session, Scalia was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation's interest.

"A constitutional convention is a horrible idea," Scalia replied. "This is not a good century to write a constitution."

Although the Convention of States (COS) Project would have one believe that a constitutional convention is a "totally different creature" from an Article V convention or "convention of the states," as they call it, this is simply not true.

Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one:
 

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added]

This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary.

Professor Scalia may have entertained the notion of a convention back in 1979, but by 2014 Justice Scalia was firmly set against it and rightly so, noting the uncertainty that could arise from such a modern convention. This is especially true given today's political climate and prevailing lack of education about the Constitution. The solution, as The John Birch Society advocates and Justice Scalia understood throughout his judicial career, is adhering to the Constitution, not changing it by way of amendments at an unpredictable convention.

First Action Request:
Click here for the phone number of your state legislators. Phone them and ask them to vote against all bills and resolutions making application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments.Tell them that our state legislatures and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it.

Second Action Request:
Click here to send a prewritten, editable message to your state legislators. It is preferable (to get the maximum impact) to edit the message in some way, such as adding opening or closing remarks, or editing the message itself. Then send the email message.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

Muslim Groups Already in the United States Preparing for Jihad and Implimentation of Sharia Law

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!! News
Mark Matheny
February 22, 2016


According to FBI reports, there are approximately 22 Islamic Radical Training Camps in the United States that are preparing to enforce Sharia Law through violence.