Friday, September 25, 2009

Financial Armageddon? WHY?

There is NO NEED for Financial Armageddon!

We do NOT have to be short of money!

Use your head. Why would we be short of money if we can create it legally and Constitutionally?

We are only short of money because we have been overcome by the falsehood that all money must be borrowed.

We could create new money every time we build something, every time we fix our crumbling infrastructure.


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

AUDIT FED: HR 1207 Gets A Hearing






9AM, Friday, September 25



Sunday, September 13, 2009

Worse Than When It Was Bad



Wednesday, September 9, 2009

This Could Be Avoided!!!!...


- Forbes, 09.08.09

Tuesday, September 8, 2009



What do you expect, when you use debt for money?
I had better be more debt - it's a mathematical certainty.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Financial Genocide?

Webster's Dictionary
geno-cide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Q: Are the mega bankers engaged in a crime against humanity?
A: Is it deliberate, systematic, destruction?

You are witnessing a deliberate, systematic, controlled destruction, of the US economy.

Multi-National, Corporate, Banker-Run, Genocide.
When it is all said and done, what will you have "conquered"?
What will you "rule" over?
A giant, toxic, evil, psychopathic, corrupt, prison of greed and sin.

Look 50 pages deep. LOOK!
Who do you think finances this?
Who could stop it?


What we know:
1. If something exists, it was created.
2. Money exists.
3. Therefore, money is created.

Once "money" is created, it has to be introduced into the economy for us to be able to use it and there are only 3 ways to get the new money into the economy.
1. Gift it in.
2. Loan it in.
3. Spend it in.

Think about it.

Each has its pro's and con's.
Here's the executive summary:

Gift it in? Loss of value.

Loan it in? Unpayable interest and inevitable financial collapse.

Most people have been conditioned toward 2 responses:
1. "Spending" is bad!
2. We need to "spend" more!

But both groups ignore one fundamental and extremely vital fact. The fact that, right now, ALL of our money is created as a loan to someone. It is ALL debt. No debt, no money. So ALL of our money, in the aggregate, has to be paid back. Plus interest! Now the dirty little secret: there is no "plus interest" in the economy, only the original borrowed principal. We have to borrow to pay the interest. Impossible.

Before you "spend" you have to borrow! So, it's not the "spending" that the first group fears that's bad, it's the borrowing that comes first, that's bad.

Before you "spend more" you first have to borrow it, going further into debt! And that's what's bad about "spending more".

Spend it in? In other words, create it, debt free, and spend it in to the economy for the things we need and use. Only one catch - the things MUST be a benefit to ALL PEOPLE. Otherwise one group gets an unfair advantage over another.

If you "Spend It" into the economy (without first borrowing it), you have to "buy" something, and by doing it this way, production must match the spending (there must be something to buy!). Therefore, it's non-inflationary. Jobs are created - don't we need that? The people become wealthier because the new money is not a loan and does not have to be paid back - it stays in the economy so we can use it, save, invest, etc.. Spending it in does NOT create more debt; when spent on high quality infrastructure, it creates more wealth.

See Article 1, Section 8. (Congress can "coin", or create, money for roads).
Compare that to the illegal debt mess we live under now.

If we spend it in, for the highest quality infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, levees, electric grid, hydrogen fuel, rail, desalination plants, desert compost zones, smart lights, airports) we will live in a safer, cleaner, "richer" and more environmentally gentle country.

Imagine the possibilities.