Earthlinggb's Blog

Taxing you, literally, to death

Posted in "Climate Change", Agenda 21, Science by earthling on December 6, 2015

My first and my last words on Climate Change which is in print and for all to see while it’s from the same body of people who, essentially, lurk in the shadows and “advise” governments and the United Nations. One must also simply understand that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families control so many of these little known organisations – little known, not to those of us who research it all but to the vast majority of the population who just do not and have no interest in doing so but just accept everything the BBC and the rest of the mainstream press and media tell them on whatever subject.

 

While I’m glad to see this on the BBC, I think to myself “Why now? And why Piers Corbyn? There have been others who have spoken out but they have been silenced and, on a few occasions, sacked by the BBC”. So, again, why now and why Piers? Could it be the timing is perfect to undermine Jeremy Corbyn from another angle? “The Corbyn family all have ‘extreme’ views” and while it has been essentially the left who have supported and been vocal on Climate Change and the need to do something about it, the BBC then use Jeremy’s brother to create a significant split in Labour and their supporters, therefore diluting Jeremy’s position even further. Some other Labour candidate comes along to unite Labour and take on the party leadership role and they suit the establishment far better than Corbyn – Hilary Benn for example?

 

Anyhow, “Climate Change” (or “Global Warming”) was promulgated by the Club of Rome. Do your homework on the Club of Rome if you do not already know who is in it, who the movers and shakers are, how they influence, who they influence etc if you haven’t already.

Here is those first and last words:

“Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.””

In one passage the authors conjecture about new needed enemies or rally points for global society, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

Now really, be my guest if you simply wish to ignore what you’ve just read but remember, insodoing, you have no idea what you are allowing to happen to your children and your children’s children. Piers says it’s just a con and a fraud. It is, but it’s not just that. It has a far greater purpose than that. If you are a climate change enthusiast, totally invested in believing it to be real and you also are totally invested in the belief the world is overpopulated, then sit your children down and explain to them you are supporting their ultimate demise. Tell them you’d like them to be sterilised. In fact, sterilise them at birth. Even better, don’t have children. Not even one.

51zr8J75J6L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

The Girl who could not commit a crime!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthling on April 3, 2012

THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNISE HER AS EXISTING BECAUSE SHE HAS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE. THE LAW THEN EXCUSES ITSELF FOR NOT ALLOWING HER TO HAVE A PASSPORT, ID OR ANYTHING WHICH ALLOWS HER TO PLAY THE GAME OF LIFE (MONOPOLY). THEY, THEREFORE, STATE ALL THE REASONS WHY NOT BEING REGISTERED IS A DANGEROUS THING. HOWEVER, FOR EVERY YANG THERE IS A YING. THE STATE, THE U.N., THE LEGAL WORLD AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT ADVISE ANYONE, OF COURSE, THAT IF YOU ARE NOT RECOGNISED BY LAW AS EXISTING THEN YOU CANNOT BE “SEEN” TO BREAK THE LAW. THE STATE AND THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT CANNOT, THEREFORE, HOLD YOU TO OBEYING LEGISLATION SUCH AS PAYING TAX AND BAILING OUT THEIR CORRUPT BANKER BOSSES. YOU DO NOT EXIST!!
THIS IS HOW THE POLICE STATE IS BEING BUILT. YOU ARE A “PERSON” IN LAW. THIS GIRL WAS NOT!! BUT THE STATE DO NOT WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE YING – HOW THEY CONTROL YOU AND OPPRESS YOU!

PLEASE WILL YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE LOGIC WHICH THE POLICE STATE, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE STATE/GOVERNMENT/U.N. DO NOT WISH YOU TO RECOGNISE. YET IT IS IN FRONT OF YOUR VERY OWN NOSE!

27 March 2012 Last updated at 12:52

Jade Jacobs-Brooks’ 20-year birth certificate battle

Jade Jacobs-BrooksJade Jacobs-Brooks was 20 before she got a birth certificate

Getting a birth certificate is something most people take for granted.

For Jade Jacobs-Brooks and her parents, it was a mammoth task that resulted in a relentless battle spanning two decades.

Miss Jacobs-Brooks, 20, from Harlow, Essex, was born in Alicante, in Spain, in September 1991.

But she had no paperwork to prove it because of a bureaucratic mix-up between British and Spanish authorities.

It meant she was unable to get a passport, vote or move out of the family home.

Even nights out with her friends were difficult because she had no identification to prove her age.

“It’s been incredibly frustrating,” she said.

“When I turned 18, everyone was going to bars and clubs but I couldn’t go because I didn’t have any identification.

“For me, it was more upsetting than anything.”

The saga began following Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth when her parents, Linda Jacobs and Victor Brooks, contacted officials in Spain.

“Start Quote

If she had been a prisoner in a Spanish jail she would have probably got more help.” OF COURSE! AND AGAIN, THAT POINTS TO THE ENTIRE CON – YOU SEE, SHE DID NOT EXIST IN THE EYES OF THE LAW THEREFORE, ANYTHING HARMING HER WAS HARMING A NON EXISTENT PERSON (PERSON!!). OF COURSE, IF SHE WAS NON EXISTENT THEN, IT IS OBVIOUS, JUST AS SHE COULD NOT BE SEEN BY A COURT TO BE HARMED AND THE COURTS COULD NOT/WOULD NOT PROTECT HER OR THE STATE BESTOW ANY OF THEIR “PERSONS RIGHTS” UPON HER, SHE COULD, LOGICALLY, ALSO NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NON EXISTENT PERSONS/ENTITIES CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION CAN THEY? BUT, HAD SHE COMMITTED A CRIME YOU CAN BE 100% SURE THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE HER PROCESSED TOUTE SUITE! 

SO THE MORAL IS: IF YOU DO NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO THE LAW THEN YOU CANNOT COMMIT A CRIME – HOWEVER, IF YOU DO COMMIT A CRIME, YOU CAN BE SURE THE STATE WILL PROCESS YOU AND, AFTER YOUR TERM IN JAIL, VOILA! YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR PASSPORT AND YOU SHALL EXIST!

JUST COMMIT A CRIME! 😉 

Andrew DennySolicitor

Everything appeared to have been signed off correctly and the couple received a temporary passport for their daughter.

They were told the birth could then be registered in the UK.

But after returning home, British officials said the documents were invalid.

The family contacted the Veya Baja Hospital, near Alicante, to ask for the official birth certificate.

But they were told there were no records relating to Jade.

“It turned into a complete nightmare,” said Mr Brooks, 55, who works as a porter.

“We contacted the hospital and they couldn’t help us. The British officials couldn’t help.

“We had nowhere to turn.”

‘Wits’ end’Every avenue taken by Mr Brooks and Ms Jacobs resulted in a dead end.

Numerous letters were sent out appealing for help, with the government, MPs and even the Queen contacted.

Mr Brooks flew back to Alicante in attempt to resolve the issue when his daughter was a toddler.

“We tried everything but were at our wits’ end,” said Mr Brooks.

“People said they might be able to help but no-one ever got back to us. It got to the point where I thought this would never be resolved.”

In 2008, the situation came to a head when Miss Jacobs-Brooks was 16. She got a job at a supermarket but was told she would not be able to start work unless she could prove her identity. “PROVE YOU EXIST!” What about “I’m standing right in front of you therefore I exist”?

The document Jade's parents were given in SpainThe birth document issued in Spain was invalid

Her story was published in a local newspaper and it was then that Allen and Overy, a major law firm, got involved.

Solicitor Andrew Denny, a partner at the firm, started to investigate the case.

“I just couldn’t understand why the British Government didn’t step in and work with the Spanish Government,” he said.

“She was left to sort out a case that no private individual would have had a chance of doing. I don’t think I’d have been able to solve without the help of our Madrid office.

“It’s not just a case of speaking the language, it’s working out the Spanish system.”

Miss Jacobs-Brooks had been placed in an almost impossible situation, Mr Denny said.

‘Human rights affected’Her life was on hold until she could get a birth certificate. NO “HUMAN RIGHTS”. ARE YOU SAYING A BABY JUST BORN HAS NO RIGHTS? THINK HARD ABOUT THIS! “HUMAN RIGHTS” is a misnomer! THEY ARE TALKING “LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS”. This is obvious now because until she is recognised as existing as a person then they are saying she has no rights!!

“Everything we take for granted, Jade was not able to do,” said Mr Denny.

“The right to be able to work, to move freely and travel – she was being denied all that. It was impacting on her human rights.

“If she had been a prisoner in a Spanish jail she would have probably got more help.”

The firm agreed to take on her case free of charge. If it had been private client, the legal bill would have run into tens of thousands of pounds. OK, THEY TOOK IT ON FREE OF CHARGE. GOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDING ANOTHER SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM AND SHALL MAKE FROM HER LATER. SHE’S AN ASSET SO WHY WOULD THEY CHARGE YOU? NEVERTHELESS, THEY MADE MONEY SOMEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM (PROBABLY PAID BY THE TAXPAYER – ALL THE OTHER SLAVES).

Following the intervention of lawyers, the hospital in Spain was finally able to locate a document relating to Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth.

Jade Jacobs-Brooks as a babyJade Jacobs-Brooks was flown back to the UK days after being born in Spain

After three years’ of investigation, the lawyers had found enough information to process an application for a birth certificate.

“I’m not 100% sure what went wrong at the Spanish end,” said Mr Denny.

“We may never know.”

For Miss Jacobs-Brooks and her family, the news was a huge relief. A RELIEF BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF HOW THIS IS A CONTROL GRID MECHANISM!

“We would never have been able to afford pay the legal fees to get this resolved,” Mr Brooks said.

“Without the legal help, I don’t think we would have ever got anywhere with this. OF COURSE NOT! IT IS THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT WHO WANT YOU TO BE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AFTER ALL! OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO “HELP” YOU! WHILE MAKING A BUCK OUT OF YOU AT THE SAME TIME!

“But we shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place.”

Now in possession of the birth certificate, a whole host of new opportunities have opened up for Miss Jacobs-Brooks.

She has ambitions to work in the City of London having completed a course in business administration.

“I just want to get on with my life now,” she said. YOU HAVE A LIFE! WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE IS A CONTROLLED ONE. THE “NEW OPPORTUNITIES” WHICH HAVE OPENED UP ARE ALL CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. THINK OF WHY YOU CAN EXIST YET NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME! HAS ANYTHING CHANGED ABOUT YOU SINCE YOU WERE GIVEN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE? NO! IT IS THE STATE THAT STOPS YOU FROM HAVING A FULL LIFE WITHOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. IT IS YOUR GAME PIECE ON THE GAME OF MONOPOLY THEY ARE FORCING YOU TO PLAY!

COMPANIES CANNOT EMPLOY YOU BECAUSE COMPANIES MUST ENSURE (CONTROLLED BY THE STATE AND THE SAME LAW) THAT YOU PAY NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INCOME TAX. A COMPANY DOESN’T CARE IF YOU PAY THESE THINGS BUT THE STATE CONTROLS THE COMPANY AND IF THEY EMPLOY YOU WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT “SEEN” BY LAW (THEREFORE YOU CANNOT BE HELD TO STATUTE) THE STATE WILL DESTROY THE COMPANY! THE COMPANY IS AS MUCH CONTROLLED AND HAMSTRUNG BY THE STATE AS ANYONE. THIS IS BECAUSE THE BANKS (CENTRAL BANKS, IMF ETC ETC AND THE CROWN) WISH TO ENSURE ALL THAT MONEY KEEPS FLOWING UPWARDS! AND……A COMPANY IS A?………………….PERSON! 😉 

NOW PLEASE READ THIS:  THE MATRIX
AND THIS: The “NATURAL PERSON” and THE MATRIX
THIS: U.N. INADVERTENTLY CONFIRMS “FREEMAN” CONCEPT
AND THIS: DESTROYING THE MINDGAME!

SNP: The party of “Independence”. Altogether now: hahahahahahahaha

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on June 21, 2011

 

 

From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:46:32 +0000

I thought I may as well send you two a copy of this too. If nothing else it may educate you.

An yes gentlemen, I am well aware of how “dangerous” all of this information is. That’s why you won’t listen – you have no “proverbials”.

Earthling.


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

2nd November 1998 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.

 

 

§Lord GrenfellMy Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.

Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.

With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.

26th January 1999 –

Lord Sudeley

My Lords, the proper way to tackle the question of this debate would be the eradication of usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. However, instead of that, we really need to go back to the Moslem system of banks entering into business partnerships. The case against usury has been well represented by the Christian Council of Monetary Justice, meetings of which in the other place are chaired by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby and also by the Federation of Small Businesses. I am very conscious about how many parliamentarians shy away from opposition to usury because it is so embedded in our system. So this evening I shall ask for less.

The parties which are exceptionally informative on the subject of this debate would, I believe, be the Independent Banking Advisory Service, the Bankruptcy Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and two academics, Prem Sikka and Professor Christer of the University of Salford. In considering the problem posed by the debate we need to be mindful of the view of the Independent Banking Advisory Service that 30 per cent. of business failures would not have occurred during the last recession if banks had not been in a hurry to get their money back. The Bank of England’s quarterly report on small business statistics dated December 1998 reflects the fact that business failures rose by more than 6.2 per cent. last year. We also need to have regard to the lack of sufficient bank regulation. The ombudsman is concerned only with small cases and the Financial Services Authority will not comment on individual cases.

The report in the Daily Mail on 20th January headed, “Beware On Demand Bank Loans” was largely concerned with the case of Lloyd’s Bank versus Heritage Plc—distributing household wares to major superstores—in which the courts upheld that “on demand” means immediate repayment. Here lies the problem. The British Bankers Association is not collecting information about on demand loans in the belief that they are rare. On the contrary, the Independent Banking Advisory Service finds that the number of such loans is growing.

942In repaying a loan it is crucial that a debtor should have sufficient time so that his assets can be sold at a comfortable pace to fetch their proper value. Otherwise, the assets go for a decimated value. The proper role of the investigatory accountant, therefore, is to ensure that that should not happen. He should be acting as a debtor’s physician and not as his mortician.

Why is that not happening? It is because of the conflict of interest with which this debate is concerned where the investigatory accountant is appointed a receiver and so has a vested interest from the initial investigation, thereby knowing the lucrative fee income available. There is also the problem and foul practice of collusion with outside parties waiting in the wings to acquire the debtor’s assets at under-value. Hard though it may be to prove collusion, the opportunity is there. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will be sufficiently sagacious to judge that it is.

In conclusion, this debate is concerned with the questionable methods by which banks pursue many small debtors who would otherwise survive. But which party is chiefly in debt? Obviously the banks themselves, with a fraction in reserve, lending fraudulently way beyond their resources. I thought that the proportion was 10:1 but, when repeating the Statement on international finance on 2nd November, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inform the House that, with hedge funding, that proportion is much higher.

4th November 1999 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of “lending money at no risk”. Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.

There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.

The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.

How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.

That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.

Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.

The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.

1069What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company’s control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.

The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks’ use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.

What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.

By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln’s greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln’s assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers’ control.

During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.

The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.

I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.

1070