How the FUCK would a three year freeze only save a quarter trillion dollars, but we've spent 300 Billion in just one year? Sounds like bullshit to me.

From Wikipedia...The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[16] Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit.

The US currently has a little more than 9,000 metric tons in reserve of the 142,000 metric tons that has been mined.

My understanding of how it would work (and I'm no expert, I'm a smut peddler :) ) is that it would modify the value of the dollar to reach the gold we had to back it. For example, back in the 1950's the average income was around $3,400 per year. But a house only cost 14K and car was 1.3K. Bread was 14 cents a loaf and gas was 20 cents a gallon. We would have to return to that type of valuation system. To do that we would have to bring the world with us and that would be very hard. If the average person made 3.4K per year, but could buy a house, have a nice life and take a decent vacation with that income then it wouldn't be a huge deal to them because it is all relative. If you live the same life, who cares if you make 50K or 3.5K. But when you leave the country and everything costs 10 times what it does here, then you have issues.

The idea of returning to the gold standard is a nice one, but realistically that horse has left the barn and probably is never coming home.

Exactly...the primary reason to lift the gold standard is we did not any longer have enough gold to back the gold standard.

Gold Cover Clause ratio.

Good explanation. But it's not coming back because economics has moved away from that concept and into fiat currency bullshit.

The reason the US doesn't have enough gold is because in 1933 Roosevelt seized everyone's gold after doing so they increased the fixed price and sold said gold to the Vatican via China. Because if you didn't already know the Pope supposedly owns the World by conquest and/or discovery. We are all just renters of his land.. Now you can understand why such a "holy" man has to ride around in a bullet proof bubble car everywhere he goes.

You are somewhat correct in that we can't just go back to a gold standard. The best thing would be money tied to a basket of commodities for international trading in addition to "credits" for one's labor. You set the credit price for your labor and or goods. In exchange you get credits to your account. More or less a form of LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) They are already popping up around the World. In fact Japan's government setup 8 different systems in their country.

http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/resources/sidonie/home.html

Guys...


http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...air093002.html

The reason the US doesn't have enough gold is as I stated above...and not for the reason you have provided.

Nope the reason is for the reason I stated. And it didn't just happen here in America. The same things happened around the World in all Western and some Eastern countries during the great depression. Including bankrupt governments and rule by admiralty/maritime law. It was all by design to make everyone slaves to debt. This is documented history and it can't be denied.

Once again. GOLD COVER CLAUSE RATIO

Also didn't catch one other flaw in that. The amount of dollars in circulation is exactly the amount of national debt. Hence the term "debt note" which makes us debt slaves.

Actually dude, that's not entirely accurate. The national debt far exceeds the amount of dollars in circulation, that is if we also count medicare/medicaid/social security, etc.. And i'm not sure that's counting the treasury securities that are held in foreign vaults.

Jimmy Carter did the same thing, another useless president

Medicaid, etc are entitlements and debt owed by the US government. The actual dollars in circulation is directly tied to outstanding public debt (roughly $12.5 trillion) Treasury bonds are what creates those dollars.

Yea I realize that, but our outstanding debt is more than 12.5 trillion dollars. I'm counting entitlements as well which is why I wasn't sure what you were saying.

Kane, Demon
You're both on trac. Free Markets are free in that the barriers to enter are low and attainable and the business owner is free to manucature/sell any product he/she feels is marketable. The consumer is free to decide what products and services he/she wants to buy. Where the trouble lies is when the business owner tries to "pull one over" on the consumer. That is when free markets need a neutral third party oversight - government. To remain a free society we have to maintain laws. We are a society of laws and that includes the business sector.

Example: if you oprerate an adult paybsite, collect monthly payments from members but do not allow them access to the site, you are breaking the law by breaking your own contractual terms with the membership. Who does the member go to for rectification? Without a regulatory body keeping the website operator in check, my guess is that several website operators would do just that or something simmilar, until existing members and new members get a clue.

Closed markets are those controlled by a government or sole serving industry with substantial barriers to entry. Communist/socialist governments create substantial barriers ot entry so they can controll who, what, when, where a busines operates.

We are never going back to the gold standard. Our economy cannot reverse that course. Deal with it and thank Nixon.

It's going to be a long and depressing 7 years for all of you Obama haters out there.

I don't feel bad about it however, as he is the most intelligent president this country has had in a very long time.

Carry on keyboard warriors!

Again, government debt is the same as your household debt. If your income drops you do not have enough money to cover your obligations. Not rocket science. As a household, we decide what expenses we can cut to make our income strech. We do not increase spending in the hopes it will generate more income. A business may think this way regarding advertising their product/service. Government does not produce any products to generate income/revenue. When taxes collection drops and expenses increase you have a deficit. Not rocket science. If the spending does not create adddiotnal taxes it was money spent for no other purpose than getting votes and tell the 'sheeple' what they want to hear, that government will take care of them.

As webmasters and website operators, we should all remember the mid 90's. The age of the internet and the .com bubble. That decade produced tremendous income for the US Economy which translated into high tax revenues creating a true surplus. After the bubble burst incomes dropped along with tax revenues but spending increased. Then came along 9/11. Ouch.

It's simple economics 101. The thing is, no one what's to step up to the plate and take responsibility to tell the sheeple the truth. Times are hard. Non essential spending needs to be cut to match tax revenues. REGARDLESS of who is in the White House or controls either house of Congress. Your community support of art museums needs to be transferred to the private sector. Community support of the needy needs to shift to faith based organizations that have the resources through charitable giving. If it does not concern defense, national security, or interstate commernce, let the private sector step up and take care of the need.

You said it in a much better way than I could. I am all for a free market and allowing those who want to go into business to do so with as few hurdles standing in their way as possible, but I think there needs to be some oversight to protect the consumer.

Some free market people will say that if one paysite starts screwing people over, the customers will leave it and go to another that does not and the good paysite with thrive because the market demands it. Of course that is of little consequence to those who got screwed getting some kind of recourse. When you are talking about a $30 membership fee it is one thing, but when the same idea is applied to a major purchase that costs several hundred, if not thousand, dollars it is another.

Very good post.

The problem with our society is that they had deceived the entire population in the belief that what they label "laws" are really laws but in reality they are "statutes." You mentioned contracts and obligations to those. Well this is were they have pulled off the scam. They have contracted with everyone and didn't tell everyone they were actually entering those contracts. This is how they jail and fine you for various "statutes" in most cases because you are in breach of contract. Your drivers license is a hidden contract obligating you to those "statutes." Social Security is another contract. Selective Service is another contract. That one is the key to most because what they are really doing in court is a military tribunal under maritime/admiralty law. Need an example? The reason illegal aliens are really allowed to drive around without licenses and aren't held to the same "laws" as you and I is because they aren't contracted.

Last but not least. A contract is null and void without full disclosure.

Once a person checks the box on the bottom of the webpage next to the "accept tems and conditoins" he/she has accepted full disclosure from the provider. After the terms are accpted by the payer/member, payment is offered by payer and accepted by payee, the contract is binding. It then becomes the responsibility of the member to hold the site operator true to his/hers "terms and conditions".

If you want to drive a car on a road that is onwed/operated/maintained by a municipality, you have to adhere to their rules and regulations, or "stautes". Same with use of private property. The Golden Rule: he who owns the gold makes the rules.

According to the Law Merchant codes the very law that this contract was made under
there are certain things that constitute a valid versus invalid contract. You must realize that no court has the authority to enforce a invalid contract and I deny the validity of a contract that Roosevelt entered into with the international bankers. He borrowed bank credit on the promise to redeem in gold coins. Creating credit out of thin air the bankers had no risk and no interest because they didn't loan anything of value and thus had no interest in the loan being paid. It was a no interest contract and thus void by the international law of the nations. Therefore America owes no legit debt. And since America only owes the debt by an invalid contract how am I as an American citizen compelled to perform under to an invalid contract under the Admiralty jurisdiction?


"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitututionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general princples follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ...

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded therby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177

the black dude will only get 1 term.

1. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Chisholm v. Georgia, and more, opine that after July 4, 1776 when King G was "thrown out," everyone in the colonies became politically equal and all of us were born "sovereign" over our own selves.

2. Every state constitution repeats this when stating, for example, that all political power is vested and derived from the people.

3. We now KNOW that the USA and the "states" are artificial entities, or corporations, just like WalMart, GM, etc. Justice Marshall stated that they only exist IN THE MIND! Some, being governmental, are political in nature.

4. No Man or Woman has ever or can ever be born in an artificial entity.

5. Therefore, governments do not exist in nature, can have no more authority delegated to them than what their creators individually possessed.

Since no man has authority to put another man into servitude, against the man's will. The only way these POLITICAL entities can obtain POLITICAL jurisdiction / authority over a Man, the entity must get the NAME to VOLUNTEER IN!.

I never was informed of these facts when growing up. My mind was blank from birth. I was lied to and told the opposite of these truths, and the government has NO EVIDENCE that I was told the truth, and then being informed that I could volunteer to be its slave, I knowingly, willingly, and intentionally "joined up." How about you?

Until that happens, the government has no POLITICAL authority over us. Subject matter and personam jurisdiction are daughters of political jurisdiction and relate only to 'persons' who are 'members' of these corporations. (by contract)

Marbury Vs. Madison- "Any law passed that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America is null and void."

The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional/valid law...not you...or any other entity.

:1orglaugh Once again another part of the deception. Are you aware that the Supreme Court that you believe is the highest Court in the US isn't? But if you want decisions made by that court which backs up what I'm saying I'll post many. I've already posted a few.

I will...foolishly bite. What is the highest Court in the US?

Stay out of big boy threads. This topic (like most topics) above both your intelligence and paygrade.

It's wishful thinking on my part diesal. I think we CAN go back to it because it's definitely possible using the Gold Cover Clause Ratio. However, mainstream economics is flawed and simple minded.

Btw, amongst the 5-6 of us, definitely a great discussion, this forum could use more like it.

Here's a few on the "driving" aspect of "law" You see they tricked everyone into a "contract" that turned them into "drivers" doing business on the roadways rather than "traveling"



"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147



"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75



"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163



"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579



"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516




"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82



"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864



"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781



"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

'Sheeple" are uneducated beings that are abused by non sheeple - politicians. You can recite every decision handed down by the High Court, the fact of the matter is, our Constitution conveys law making power to the three banches of the poeple by the poeple. If the poeple do not actively play a role in "THEIR" government then "their" government plays the active role and governs at will. Such as today.

I agree with you, onwebcam, that our society has turned a bling eye to government allowing Washingto to dictate to us, the 'sheeple", how things are going to be.

Now would be a good time for American 'sheeple' to open our eyes, take back OUR government from the theiving life long crooks who have overthrown our consitutional rights and civil liberties.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Tea Party agenda, the group exlempifies principles America was founded on - Free Speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom of expression, freedom to QUESTION elected officials. We have not questioned politician's actions enough to scare them into doing the right thing. McCain is running for his 5th reelection! Why do we keep sending the same idiots back to Washington doing the same thing they did in their previous 2,3,4,5 terms? The sheeple should stand up and vote in all new politicians regardless of experience. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

Oh I'm sorry Mini Mind - I didn't realize you and your "big boy" friends were so busy fixing the problems of the country.

Let me know when you have everything taken care of. I'll just sit back and watch in amazement, as you enlighten us with all of your brilliant solutions.

Carry on douche!

You know your life is a joke when you're considered a moron even by adult webmaster standards.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I pity the people who equate classical liberalism to modern liberalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam View Post
Once again another part of the deception. Are you aware that the Supreme Court that you believe is the highest Court in the US isn't? But if you want decisions made by that court which backs up what I'm saying I'll post many. I've already posted a few.



I will...foolishly bite. What is the highest Court in the US?

Couldn't agree with you more! :thumbsup

Sadly though, the Tea Party is organized and run by the republican party. It is nothing more than a way for the republicans to attempt to expand their base. They are slowly losing their strangle hold on the Christian conservatives so they need other people. The main operating/organizational staff of the tea party are all made up of former Reagan staffers. If these people really were so angry about excessive debt and the rights of the people being taken away, where have they been for 8 years while Bush ran up huge deficits, passed the patriot act and invaded a country that didn't attack us? I'm not saying Obama should get a pass, he shouldn't, but this deficit just didn't spring up 12 months ago. All of this spending and craziness just didn't happen.

There is no hope that the Sheeple will change. Case in point. When they announced the tentative dates that Obama could give the State of the Union speech on there was an uproar because one of them was on the same night that the premier of the final season of Lost was on. Obama had to assure people he wouldn't interrupt Lost. When people care more about a TV show then the state of the country, that is sad. The same people keep getting elected because as much as people say they want change, they really don't. People don't care about the deficit or the national debt. We have been hearing about it all our lives and most people don't see how it effects their day-to-day life. So people stick with what they know. They would rather have a guy in office that they know is screwing them, then take a chance on a new guy who they fear might screw them more.

When it comes down to elections people look at their lives and see how they are doing. If they have a decent job and a decent house and car and if the outlook for their immediate future is good, then they pick a candidate based often on moral ideals and not on their potential ability to lead. Case in point: during the last presidential election CNN was interviewing several different people who considered themselves conservatives. These were all voters in Ohio. Of the 10 or so they interviewed about 7 of them all said the same thing. They said they felt that Obama would be a better president than McCain and that he would do a better job than McCain, but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who is pro-choice. So they were voting for McCain simply because he was pro-life. That is a pretty common situation.

after reading your court rulings, it seems that public highways are only intended for private citizens usage making privately purchased transportation of goods and services illegal...stagecouch and omnibus business illegal on public highways.

I read that as: if I do not own the goods in the back of my truck I am in violation of public highway usage laws. Are we sure we want to enforce those laws to the letter?