Free Republic

If the bonds are callable in their indenture, what exactly are you claiming is inappropriate?

I tried to get an answer to this in another thread a few days ago and no one answered.

As clarified: [You are] having a hard time imaging the unification of tribes/sects whichever as disparate as are found in Iraq today--and found in the region for the past Thousand years

My point is, now that they are liberated why don't we just.... leave them liberated?

just having a hard time imaging the unification of tribes/sects whichever as disparate as are found in Iraq today--and for the past nThousand years.

"Iraq" has not existed for a thousand years, however. It was created by the British in 1932. The western powers should just let them figure it out for themselves.

The inherent failure of a pure democracy.

The problem isn't with pure democracy it is with power relationships (see post #8). NO SYSTEM is so good that it can prevent those with power from abusing it. The power of special interests in our constitutional democracy is a case in point.

In a country with no census to speak of, no way of knowing beyond the possession of pre-ass-whooping passport whether an Iraqi is an Iraqi is an Iraqi...

According to British officials an electoral roll drawn up from a mixture of ration cards, health cards, and identity cards. Your Fiesta Bowl analogy is simply not analogous.

“Democracy”: two wolves and a lamb voting what’s for lunch.

“Republic” : two hundred wolves and one hundred lambs electing two wolves and one lamb to vote what’s for lunch.

“Constitutional Republic” : the same two hundred wolves and one hundred lambs electing two wolves and one lamb to vote what’s for lunch, where the constitution guarantees that lamb is off the menu. Eventually, the Supreme Court votes 5 wolves to 4 lambs that mutton is not the same as lamb.

The confusing thing, however, is that in the article linked by SkyRat in post #39, above, the word "callable" is in quotes---leading me to wonder why the quotes.

Were these bonds callable in their indenture?

If so, of course the Treasury would and should call them. I don't see what negative implications can be drawn from such an action.

If not, by what authority is it doing so?

But it is certainly not acceptable to assume, as Mr. Zitzewitz did, and as Mr. Spitzer zealously approved, that timers' revenues are actually being squeezed out of long-term investors.

I agree with your comments. I wonder how drivel like the above quote from the article (which is just one example of the drivel in the article) make it past editors at the WSJ? Are they asleep?

I, and several others, spoke with him for over an hour after his presentation and he was even more interesting in casual conversation than in his presentation.

I attended this presentation by Dr Veira. His two volume 1600 page book, Pieces of Eight is a must have (I did not read it cover to cover but have used it as a reference. Regarding the constitutional issue, I have summarized some key points from Dr. Veira's book. Here they are:

Based on original intent Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are, clearly, unconstitutional. Those who claim FRNs are constitutional based on implied powers must, nonetheless, predicate those implied powers on expressed powers. No such predication appears possible.

The Articles of Confederation and early drafts of the Constitution expressly empowered the central government to coin money, to borrow money, and to emit bills of credit (i.e., issue paper money, ultimately, but not immediately, redeemable in gold or silver). The last of these empowerments was omitted from the final draft. The states, however, were expressly denied the right to emit bills of credit. Here, then, are the only two clauses in the Constitution that potentially could provide the basis for a claim that FRNs are constitutional :

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5: “To coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2: “To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 5 empowers Congress to coin money and to regulate its value. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the silver dollar standard. It defined a dollar as 412.5 grains of silver, 90% fine (i.e. 371.25 grains of pure silver). That Act has never been repealed or revised. In 1849 a gold dollar was defined and in 1873 and, again, in 1900 gold was statutorily established as the standard based on then existing respective market values of gold and silver and the initial defined standard.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the issuance of FRNs, “redeemable in lawful money.” Clearly, therefore, the statute did not consider FRNs lawful money. According to statute and case law, lawful money is silver, gold, silver certificates, gold certificates, and U.S Treasury demand notes. FRNs were initially redeemable in lawful money, but since 1933, they have expressly not been redeemable in gold or silver by U.S. citizens. Initially, the holder of a $1 FRN could redeem it at the U.S. Treasury for 1/20.67th of an ounce of gold. In 1934, FDR debased the FRN to 1/35th of an ounce; in 1972, the FRN was further debased to 1/38th of an ounce, and, in 1973 it was further debased to 1/42.22th of an ounce. In 1978, the 1973 Act was repealed and for the first time, the primary currency of the United States bore no relationship to the statutorily defined silver dollar of the Coinage Act of 1792.

Case law holds that Congress has no statutory power to declare any currency to be a legal tender if it deprives the recipient of purchasing power relative to statutory standards. In the light of the above-described debasements, then, FRNs cannot even properly serve as a legal tender, let alone lawful money. While FRNs are statutorily declared as “obligations” of the U.S. Government, neither the nature of the obligation nor the means of enforcing that obligation is sufficiently specified. FRNs, then, are not coins, not lawful money, not redeemable in lawful money, and are, statutorily, denied the status of legal tender.

FRNs also cannot be accorded constitutional status based on the power granted to Congress “to borrow money.” The power to borrow is different from the power to emit certificates of indebtedness, which circulate as media of exchange by force of government. The “argument” for constitutionality, then, boils down to: FRNs are constitutional because they are emitted by a structure that Congress has created and which are necessary and proper for that structure to fulfill its function. But is Congress, indeed, constitutionally permitted to create the structure of the FRS for the purposes it fulfills and does the necessary and proper clause supports its issuance of FRNs in that process.

The powers purportedly delegated to the FRS are illegal, first and foremost, because they delegate powers that the Congress does not, itself, have. Even if it had such powers, however, the grant of power is so broad that it constitutes an abdication of a power purportedly “vested” in Congress. While Congress has the rightful power to emit redeemable bills, such bills are a far cry from unredeemable emissions of a private issuer. Vested powers may not just be given away and to the extent that some aspects of the power are delegated they must be sufficiently well defined to allow appropriate monitoring.

The Constitution clearly placed both the power to coin money and the power to borrow money with the Legislative Branch even though such powers had, historically, been Executive powers in English common law. Delegation of these power to an executive agency flies in the face of the framer’s intent. Delegation of these powers to a private party is, clearly, unconstitutional.

You are right about the Jefferson quote. The terms "inflation" and "deflation" did not come into use until long after Jefferson was dead. However, there are other Jefferson quotes that express very similar sentiments that are real. For example:

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies and the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity in the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

John Adams said of bank issuances in excess of gold and silver on hand:

represents nothing and is, therefore, a cheat upon somebody.

"I've an idea. Why not just refuse to pay the debt and tear up the mortgage they hold on our children?"

Here's an even better idea. Pay off the National debt, painlessly, in the process of moving to sound banking. See:

http://www.datakids.org/fm/vince.html

The US economy is the engine of the world.

Only in the sense that new customers are the engine of a Ponzi Scheme.

The dollar's decline is purely the result of fed policy....If the fed were to reverse its policy and raise the [interest] rate it would go right back up.

The first part of your statement is true---but not the way you mean it. The dollar's problem goes well beyond interest rates.

If interest rates were a prime factor, South American currencies would be among the world's strongest. While it is true that ceteris paribus interest rates matter, a currency's value is more fundamentally affected by its supply and, in the case of dollars, it's demand as a reserve currency (as opposed to its demand for purchase of goods and services in the U.S.).

Once the reserve status of the dollar is gone (which is now perhaps as imminent as it is inevitable), the substantial premium it has been accorded for 30 years will cause it to drop like a knife in free fall. See, for example, "The Dropping Knife, by Alex Wallenwein

http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=1199

http://jfkassassination.net/earwitnesses.htm

A perfect example of your extreme bias. McAdams, a virulent "LHO Alone" theorist tabulates about 30 ear-witnesses that heard shots from the GK. You, somehow represent there were but 2.

I'm confused--Photo 4 in your links shows an exit wound towards the front right. Photo 7 seems to show a rear right head exit wound...what's up with that?

I'm also confused. However, I can tell for sure that photo 07 is JFK.

Also, there could have been both. The more shots, the easier it is to explain all of the wounds on two men plus the missed shot plus the damage on the limo that was quickly destroyed rather than preserved.

You dismiss contradictory evidence while latching on to evidence that supports what you think happened. For example,

1. You believe that only two people thought shots were coming from the GK. This even underestimates the number reported by most (if not all) "LHO, acting alone" theorists. It is much lower than credible statistics compiled on this issue by non- establishment sources;

2. You act as if the only way for someone to behave as if shots came from the GK is to rush toward the GK in hot pursuit of an armed gunman.

3. You act as if reliance on the Parkland doctors, to the exclusion of all other evidence, would lead an unbiased investigator to conclude that no shots were coming from the front. If so, you are the only person to (mis)construe the weight of the evidence from the Parkland doctors in this manner, to my knowledge.

4. The photo I saw in a book was photo number "07" at the link below that is captioned: View showing right side of head: entry wound in right temple.

HTTP = "http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html"/a>click here My feeble attempt at HTML isn't working. The address is:

www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html

1. People thought shots came from the grassy knoll; others thought shots came from the TBD. Shooters were found in neither location.

2. People responded as if the grassy knoll was a possible site of the shooting. Likewise, the TBD.

3. Clarify your statement. Did Perry and Carrico see body after tracheotomy? If so, why quote them at all if you are unbiasedly looking for the best evidence. Are you saying that relying on the Parkland doctors contemporaneous statements, there was not far more support for shots from the front than there was for shots from the rear?

4. Jackie's statement, while admittedly choppy, communicates that she was trying to keep his hair and skull in place. Photos I have seen (I can't remember if they are Parkland or Bethesda) clearly show a flap of skull that could be lifted or put down to cover the missining occipital bone.

Nope, not even close. A total of seven people thought the shots came from the Knoll. Two people were standing there. Forty one people thought the shots came from the Depository.

You are awful dismissive of Havoc's points. To summarize:

1. Numerous people (depending on who you ask the numbers change) heard shots, saw smoke, heard bullets whizzing by, coming from the grassy knoll. Interestingly, during the official investigation, afterwards, these people were "encouraged" to remember things differently. One has to wonder why.

2. Ficticious secret service men were shooing people away from the grassy knoll (including Dallas policemen)during the lead-up period. The actual secret service was not involved in this activity. After the event, cops ran toward the grassy knoll to apprehend shooters.

3. Doctors at Parkland were unanimous in describing the neck wound as an entrance wound and the fatal shot as a shot to the temple.

4. Jackie Kennedy testified to the Warren Commission: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

the reason people keep searching and searching and searching and digging and digging and digging to try to find out "what really happened" is that they simply can't conceive that a piece of human debris and flotsam and jetsam like Oswald could kill the most powerful man in the world just like he was plinking cans off the top of a fence.

I don't think that's true. People have an overwhelming tendency to believe what they are told to believe. However, when the "tellers" consistently act as would someone who is highly motivated to sell you snake oil, even the most gullible become suspicious. People were told, from the first hours, before any evidence had been collected and analyzed, that LHO, acting alone, did the deed. Therefore, if there is a lot of disbelief much of it can be laid at the feet of the demeanor of the establishment in putting forth its point of view.

Having said that, I have also been squarely in the camp that LHO was a bit player (the Patsy) in a wider scheme. I revisit the issue at 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary. I will admit, probably due to the internet, that this time around, I have a far greater belief that the official story may be the correct one. Until this year, I gave zero credence to the SBT based, primarily, on the Z-film (it doesn't look like Connolly is hit in the necessary time frame) and Parkland doctors (whom I naturally believe more than a highly motivated establishment seeming to try too hard to convince me while being closed and secretive about evidence). While I still feel this way, I have seen many interpretations of the Z film to question my recollection/judgments, and I give slightly more credence to the position that the Parkland doctor's may have been confused.

My primary point here, however, is that the level of disbelief, IMO, has far less to do with your explanation, above, than it has to do with the behavior of the establishment in putting forth its version in a manner akin to a whitewash.