"Print" Money?

This week, the so-called "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" branch of the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" announced a new set of "Naturalization Exam" questions and answers.

One of the answers to the new "Naturalization Exam" question number 53 is fraudulent:

53. Name one thing only the federal government can do.

[possible answers]
A: Print money >>FALSE<<
A: Declare war
A: Create an army
A: Make treaties

The federal government is permitted by law only to coin money (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, [not lawfully repealed or amended]).

The word "coin" does not mean "print" (or even "issue") — it means stamping/pressing metal into coins. In its true and original context, that can only mean real money -- from gold and silver, as otherwise specified in the same Constitution (Section 10, Paragraph 1, [not lawfully repealed or amended]). Constitutional (i.e., lawful) money cannot be "printed" — it can only be coined.

The federal government (including the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" and so-called "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services") commits fraud by pretending it has authority to "print money" when it lawfully does not. Answer "A" should be removed from the set of answers for question 53.

The above facts, when presented to the "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" and a few of the media mouthpieces which had glibly gushed the contents of the new exam evoked a resounding and unanimous response of ... silence.

Could it be that neither a federal agency nor the (presumedly independent) "media" wishes to face up to the fact that — even today (despite public conditioning to the contrary) — printed paper "notes" do not constitute lawful money?

The implications threaten the very foundation of the monetary house-of-cards foisted on the American public by the "Federal Reserve" bankers nearly a century ago, so the truth simply cannot be allowed to see the light of day.

So untold numbers of Americans (both new and old) continue to be conditioned to believe that government-printed paper "dollars" backed by absolutely no tangible value of any kind constitute "money".

Sad — but sadder still is the prospect of the untold millions who will one day discover that those "dollars" (whether paper or electronic) are ultimately worth no more than the nothing that has "backed" them for decades — outside of whatever crumbs of perceived "value" the bankers have allowed in the interim.

The "Fair Tax" Fraud

Aaron Russo's latest film has been waking a lot of Americans up from the statist-serf slumber that has plagued several generations.

I think that's a good thing.

But the film falls short of informing Americans of what is unquestionably the best solution to the problem.

Of course, I think that's a bad thing.

Russo seems to conclude that both the IRS and the "Federal Reserve" must be dispensed with -- shut down. I couldn't agree with him more on that count. What Russo does not conclude is what is most disconcerting. The supposed vacuum created by the elimination of these two unlawful and corrupt institutions will surely be replenished by the politicians and the bankers who own them, unless Americans realize at least two things not found in Russo's film:

1) The federal government has no lawful (that is, constitutional) authority to "issue" money -- including worthless paper "money" -- or to assign such an authority to any other party or institution (including the so-called "federal reserve"). The only lawful monetary authority the federal government has is to coin money (that is, press silver and gold into coinage), and determine the value of it (that is, determine how many grains of silver or gold must be contained in each coin). That's the law, folks. That's all the Constitution allows. Any "act of Congress" that arbitrarily presumes to ignore or overrule the Constitution is null and void, no matter how long it has been "in effect".

2) The federal government's only lawful (that is, constitutional) funding is from duties and imposts -- not from any taxation of The People or their property or "income". That's the law. And, again, any "act of Congress" that presumes to ignore or overrule the Constitution is null and void, no matter how long it has been "in effect".

In light of the above, only politicians, bankers, and their dim-witted dupes will seriously suggest the so-called "Fair Tax" (or any other illegal scheme contrary to the law of the land) as a substitute for the "federal reserve"/IRS method of funding the federal government.

If Americans really want the Constitution to be honored, now is the time to put The People's proverbial foot down, and just say no to unlawful funding (of any kind) of the federal government. And if all their bloated, meddlesome, self-serving, unaccountable bureaucracies can't survive on lawful funding, well...

I think that'll be a good thing.

The Global Warming Game

Few matters of supposed “science” have been as politicized as global warming has been in recent years. True to form, the “true believer” zealots of the political left consider global warming an unassailable “fact” of science. Heck, I’ve even been chastized (and labeled a “conservative”) by a left-wing academic — a philosophy professor (go figure) — for questioning this dogma.

If it were really a matter of scientific fact (and not a political agenda), one would not expect large numbers of practitioners of the applied sciences to question the claims of the church of global warming.

But they do.

The Heartland Institute cites several dozen webbed articles from just such sources, as does CO2 Science. Even Richard Muller, physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley has written an article on the topic.

These voices would be enough to persuade many folks that the “fact” of global warming (and its associated catechism) is not necessarily as scientifically established as advertised. But another anomaly recently emerged on the landscape of global warming “science” as the 2006 hurricane season drew to a close.

In April of 2006, “experts” at Colorado State University, and in May, “experts” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted a season at least as bad as the previous year’s (2005) — both suggesting that the “science” of global warming made their predictions all-the-more reliable.

Now, the soothsayers of weather have been neither particularly credible nor “scientific” from where I've sat most of my adult life. But when they suggest that their predictions are more credible and “scientific” because they are based in part on the “fact” of global warming — and then for those predictions to turn out to be utterly wrong — goes a long way in revealing just how truly “scientific” and meaningful the global warming agenda truly is in the real world.

As if that weren’t enough, the post-season re-spinning of global warming's “scientific” role in “causing” a milder season further indicts the whole thing as more of a political agenda than a “fact” of science.

To recap, prior to the 2006 hurricane season, we were told by the “experts” that because of global warming, we should expect a heavy season not unlike that of 2005, and after the (remarkably mild) 2006 hurricane season, we were told by more “experts” that it was because of global warming that we had such a mild season.

Genuine science doesn’t allow double-standards. Genuine politics does. You do the math.