Asset-based vs. Debt-based Economics

22 Feb

One Difference Between Asset-based Money (Gold) and Debt-based Currency (paper dollars):  Savings [courtesy Google Images]

One Difference Between Asset-based Money (Gold) and Debt-based Currency (paper dollars): SAVINGS
[courtesy Google Images]

It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog to learn that I’m not an economist.  Without formal training in economics, I sometimes make statements about the subject that may seem pretty dumb.  But, my lack of formal training in economics can sometimes be an advantage.  Insofar as I’m not formally trained in what to think in the realm of economics, I also sometimes stumble onto what may be insight since I’m inclined to “think outside the box”.  Why do I think “outside the box”?  Because, without formal education on the subject of economics, I haven’t been formally “conditioned” to know where the “box” is.

What follows may be old news to most economists, but I doubt that most ordinary people have considered the subject.  It might be another example of my ignorance—or maybe it illustrates a little common sense. 

I haven’t yet made up my mind.


It’s my understanding that most of classical economic theory is based on a time when the world relied on gold and silver to serve as its asset-based money.

It therefore strikes me as possible that modern economic theory could be opposite from classical economics in some regards.  Why?  Because he fundamental unit of measure of today’s economics is a debt-based currency system.

Classical economic theory was primarily based on asset-based money.

To my way of thinking an asset-based money is like a positive 1.

Modern economic theory is based on theories discovered in classical economics, but applied today with a debt-based currency.

To my way of thinking a debt-based currency is like a minus 1.

Assuming that debt and real assets are two fundamentally-opposed concepts, is it reasonable to suppose that modern economic theory (based on debt) can conform to classical economic theory (based on assets)?

In fact, it’s hard for me to imagine how modern economic theory could’ve “accidentally” failed to openly recognize and explain the fundamental difference between itself and classical economics and asset-based money.  Again, I’m not an economist, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “modern” economics intentionally refused to explore the difference between classical economics and modern economics for fear of alerting the public to the vast and irreconcilable differences between asset-based money and modern, debt-based, fiat currency.  I suspect that refusal might be intended to deceive us into the confusion that follows when we try to comprehend an economy based on fiat currency in the context of classical economic theories that depend on asset-based money.

If my suspicions are roughly correct, of course “modern” economics is hard to understand.  It’s like trying to solve mathematical equations that were designed to work only with positive integers by feeding in negative numbers.

Figuratively speaking, modern economics is constantly trying to apply mathematical formula designed to work with the asset-based money of classical economics, to find the square root of minus one.  They can arbitrarily declare the answer to be “i,” but there is no real answer.  The answer is finally “imaginary” and irrational, as is our modern economic system.  In the end, is it even possible to rationally imagine that a man, a nation or the world can achieve prosperity while using a debt-based monetary system?  The more debt you have, the richer you become?  Isn’t that idea insane?  Isn’t it unsustainable?

I’m not arguing that “modern” economic theory never before recognized any difference between asset-based and debt-based monetary systems.  But I am suggesting that the significance of that distinction may not have been adequately presented to the public.  More, I’m suggesting that that the failure to publicly distinguish between asset-based money (gold; payments) and debt-based fiat currency (promises to pay) may be intended to make modern economics virtually incomprehensible to the vast majority of people.  So long as virtually no one can or does really understand modern economics, it’s a lot easier for people in positions of authority to exercise unbridled power.

Today, we award Nobel Prizes to individuals who come up with new insights into “economics”.  But if you read Chapter 47 of Genesis closely, you’ll see that Joseph understood economics sufficiently well to single-handedly reduce a whole nation (Egypt) from freedom into bondage without shooting a single arrow.  In fact, Joseph was so successful that he was cheered and applauded by the very people he placed into bondage.  Virtually all of those Egyptian people didn’t have a clue.  And that was 3,800 years ago.  (For more information on this topic visit “The Story of Joseph—the World’s First Economist”.)

But the fact remains that, according to the Bible, at least a few people had sufficient knowledge of economics to place an entire nation into bondage 3,800 years ago.  If so, how much more new knowledge do you think we could’ve found over the past 38 centuries or could add today?

I believe that if you could fully understand the economic principles presented in Chapter 47 of Genesis, you’d know more about economics than 98% of the American population.  You might even know “enough” about economics to understand what’s really going on in economics today.

I doubt that the “new knowledge” being discovered about today’s economics is real (in the sense of being true).  I doubt that the new knowledge is really worthy of a Nobel Prize.  I suspect that new knowledge may be merely a more sophisticated variety of smoke and mirrors used to deceive the world into believing that a debt-based fiat currency could be mathematically equivalent to an asset-based money and thereby convince the formerly free that they aren’t actually living in bondage.


Posted by on February 22, 2015 in Debt, Economy, Education, Fiat Currency, Gold & Silver Coin


Tags: , ,

38 responses to “Asset-based vs. Debt-based Economics

  1. MPK

    February 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM

    You don’t have to be an expert to understand as expert’s are hired by what ever side to mislead the masses, in the game of who’s got the ball. If you don’t educate your self then you only have your self to blame, as the many will not do a thing, as they are ignorant and deluded.

  2. Toland

    February 23, 2015 at 1:29 AM

    Al, there’s no shame in being ignorant, as long as one refrains from the recklessness, or outright fraud, of stating uneducated opinions that others will take seriously and act upon to the detriment of their future prosperity.

    Concerning the term “classical economics”, this was coined by Karl Marx in reference to the philosophies of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and others of the “free market” school promoted and underwritten by the British East India Company.

    Modern economics differs from classical economics by dealing with such things as the role of distribution, money supply, etc. That is, modern economics is more about macroeconomic factors, rather than concentrating on production.

    Thus we find that expanding economies with a significant government component – e.g. the United States from the 1940s to the 1970s and China since the 1980s – tend to emphasize so-called “modern economics”.

  3. Cory Hine

    February 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM

    I think one reason “they” went to a fiat currency, besides being able to manipulate markets, is that there may not be enough gold and silver to cover all the transactions on a daily basis. Just a thought in the wind.

    • Adask

      February 23, 2015 at 10:31 AM

      A lot of people agree with you; they also believe there’s not enough physical gold and silver to provide for a gold-based monetary system.

      But, I think there’s plenty of gold/silver if you raise their prices. Keep the prices of goods & services the same, but raise the price of gold to, say, $25,000 per ounce. Is there enough gold then to have a gold-based monetary system? I think there is–although we might need some other price on gold/silver to make the system work.

      It’s true that there’s not enough gold to back up a gold-based monetary system at current prices for gold. But if you increase the price of gold enough, there’s plenty of gold to support a gold-based system.

      • Toland

        February 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM

        How does one go about “raising the price” of the gold or silver backing one’s currency?

      • Adask

        February 23, 2015 at 4:03 PM

        You do it the same way the government did it when it declared that 1 ounce of gold was worth $20, and later, that 1 ounce of gold was worth $35, and later, that 1 ounce of gold was worth $42. Only this time, we set the price of gold at $10,000/ounce, or $25,000/ounce or even $50,000/ounce. Same principle.

      • Henry

        February 23, 2015 at 3:47 PM


        One raises the price by FIAT, of course.

        Despite the fact that the global market has found gold to be worth $1,200 an ounce, you simply declare the gold in your vaults to be special and worth $25,000 an ounce!

        The wonder of this method is that it works for anything. For example, at current valuations, there’s not enough beach sand to back a major currency.

        But don’t be discouraged. Simply declare that, by FIAT, the sand on your beach is worth $1,000 a pound.

        Your new sand-backed currency is good to go!

      • moon

        February 23, 2015 at 4:00 PM

        Toland and Henry, when one owns gold (or anything else), that one determines it’s price. Make sure you have enough so you won’t be at the mercy of others to determine the price.

      • Toland

        February 23, 2015 at 4:32 PM

        So Al, you’re saying “raising the price” of gold to a level necessary for the gold standard requires a government decree, as we saw when FDR simply declared the price of gold to be $20, $35, etc?

        Doesn’t such an artificial, non-market price of the gold backing a currency defeat the whole purpose of a currency backed by something with intrinsic value?

        How is your valued-by-decree currency not essentially a fiat currency?

      • Adask

        February 23, 2015 at 8:12 PM

        You’re right, there’s an element of “fiat” there. But the fiat is in the paper and digital dollars, not in the physical gold. My proposal is not we raise the price of gold, per se, but lower the value of the dollar. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, now and forever. But let’s say that for the next 20 years, the perceived value of every paper dollar will be 1/25,000 of an ounce of gold ($25,000/ounce gold).

        From that perspective does my proposal make any difference? Yes–it does. It would mean that the government would have to redeem every paper dollar it spends with 1/25,000 of an ounce of gold. In a world where government spends billions or even trillions of dollars, the government could not do so unless it produced 1/25,000 of an ounce of gold for every dollar it printed. The resulting burden on government would prevent it from simply “spinning” dollars out of thin air. Without an enormous supply of real gold, government could not grow irrationally and dangerously large.

        On one level, I don’t care if the government backed the dollar with corncobs. So long as government backed dollars with physical gold–or physical corn cobs–and the dollar had be redeemable in almost anything physical, then the government could not merely “spin” dollars out of thin air. The requirement that the paper dollar be redeemable in anything physical would inhibit government spending, growth, power and tendency to tyranny.

        But, if everyone agrees that we should go back to a pure gold or silver-based money (no paper or digital currency), then the “fiat” problem of setting a “price” for the (paper) dollar would be eliminated. If you wanted to buy a new Cadillac, the price wouldn’t be $50,000 (paper)–it would be 42 ounces of gold. Everything would be priced in ounces of gold rather than paper or digital “dollars”.

        But I doubt that many people would go for a return to a pure gold monetary standard simply because paper and digital dollars are so convenient and so wedded into our economy, that they couldn’t be easily abandoned at this time. You can’t beat the convenience of credit cards, debit cards, and even checkbooks and there’s no compelling reason to abandon those paper and digital “dollars”–so long as they can all be redeemed from the government or banks at a fixed rate in form of something physical like gold or silver–or even corn cobs. So long as government itself must be able to redeem its paper and digital dollars with something physical, that prevents the government from simply “spinning” fiat currency out of thin air.

        That proposal might not be a perfect solution to all economic problems, but I view it as a huge improvement over our currently irredeemable fiat currency. It would place the creation of “money” (gold or corn cobs) in the hands of somebody other than the government. As soon as government could not create “currency” out of “thin air,” the the power of government would wane and the forces for freedom would wax.

      • Roger

        February 23, 2015 at 8:57 PM

        Adask said > Everything would be priced in ounces of gold rather than paper or digital “dollars”.

        That’s exactly why a gold standard won’t work. And yes, as you imply, the price of gold in dollars is irrelevant, whether it’s $20 or $20,000 an ounce. All that matters is the relative price of gold versus what you want to exchange it for.

        A world in which “everything would be priced in ounces of gold” is impossible, simply because the total value of all the world’s gold is far too small given the total value of all the goods and services being traded.

        For example, an economy like that of the U.S. needs a money supply that is twice its GDP. This 2:1 ratio of money supply to GDP has held more or less constant in the U.S. for over 50 years.

        But the amount of gold necessary to maintain a 2:1 ratio of (gold backed) money supply to GDP is about 3 times the entire world supply of gold.

        So, as nice a talking point as the gold standard may be, running the numbers reveals that it’s not feasible in the real world.

      • Adask

        February 24, 2015 at 2:13 AM

        Run which numbers? Do these numbers include the current price of gold? Those prices/numbers are known to vary quite a lot. Those numbers could easily vary a lot more.

        Run the numbers with gold priced at $25,000/ounce (or, conversely with dollars each “priced” at 1/25,000th of an ounce). If those numbers don’t “run,” try $50,000/ounce (or 1/50,000 of an ounce of gold per paper dollar). If that number doesn’t work, run the numbers with gold priced at $100,000/ounce, etc.

        Sooner or later, the “numbers” will “run”.

        Given the limited physical supply of gold, a gold-based monetary system probably wouldn’t work when gold is priced at $1,200 an ounce. But at some higher price for gold, the system will work just fine. It would certainly work as well or better than the current pure fiat monetary constellation of irredeemable currency, unpayable debt, and inevitable collapse and national bankruptcy.

      • Henry

        February 23, 2015 at 9:34 PM

        Backing the dollar with $25,000-an-ounce gold is as good as backing it with nothing at all.

        Only a complete fool would redeem their $25,000 for a mere ounce of the government’s gold when the same cash buys 20 times that amount of gold on the open market.

        So the government saying every $25,000 of its currency is redeemable for an ounce gold is a meaningless offer that carries no danger of being accepted.

        Either back your currency with gold at something like the market price, or don’t bother calling it “gold-backed” at all.

      • Roger

        February 24, 2015 at 4:27 AM

        Adask said > Run which numbers?

        I just explained that. The relevant numbers to run are the historic price ratios, which have nothing to do with the price of gold in dollars.

        For example, the already-cited ratio between the U.S. money supply versus the U.S. GDP. Current levels of economic activity in this country require a money supply worth twice the GDP. Even the entire supply of gold in the world is nowhere near this amount.

        Notice that I didn’t mention the price of gold in dollars. That’s because this figure is irrelevant in this context. Even if gold went up to $1,000,000 an ounce, there still would not be enough of it to sustain the U.S. GDP. That’s because, historically, an ounce of gold has bought roughly a constant amount of goods and services, especially in international trade. So if gold went up to $1,000,000 an ounce, the price of everything you want to buy would go up likewise. It’s a wash, more or less.

        Second example: Russia exports oil equal in value to 90 million ounces of gold each year, which is twice the worldwide production of gold for the same period.

        So if only Russia started pricing only their oil production in gold, they would vacuum up the entire world’s gold supply in short order. And that’s only Russia and only for their oil exports.

        Again, like in the first example, the price of gold in dollars is irrelevant. What is relevant in this example is the historic 15-to-1 ratio between the price of an ounce of gold and the price of a barrel of oil.

        This ratio is roughly constant for our purposes. It may go up to 30-to-1 or down to 10-to-1, but it remains close enough to its average value to prevent large scale petroleum sales in gold.

        Over all, whether gold happens to be $35 an ounce or $1,000,000 an ounce matters little to gold’s non-viability as a medium of exchange. When you run the numbers, it’s evident that the historically constant ratios between the value of gold and the value of goods and services make the gold standard impossible in the real world.

  4. henry

    February 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM

    The same kind of word game is used in economics as it is in law. The average person might think they comprehend the terms but the courts are using different meanings for the terms being used. So when the average person responds in colloquial American English to legal arguments, the courts will assume that the responder is using the alternative definitions even when the court knows that they are not.

    The economic term “money” is assumed that everyone knows the meaning. For 98% of the population this is a faulty assumption. The statistics that the government releases are mostly bogus. The financial reports released by corporations are somewhat bogus. The combination of alternative definitions and outright fraud leads the average person to say it is too complicated and they trust the experts.

    It is only when one tries to think for them self that they grow up. The vast majority have become children that will never grow up.

    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 5:44 AM

      @ > It is only when one tries to think for them self that they grow up. The vast majority have become children that will never grow up.

      I hear you henry. This is why any wake up call is made in vain. I hear you.

  5. moon

    February 23, 2015 at 3:54 PM

    Al, please persist in your ignorance…you’re the only one qualified to do it. As you ride the cutting edge of your ignorance, keep in mind that so-called expert “economists” have covertly put a lot of hurt on a bunch of folks. You’re thinking is truly waaaaaaay outside the box. Hope you stay waaaaay there long enough for some others to grasp the genius of you’re ignorance. Rock On!

    (With singularity of focus on clarity: way to go, Al, on this post!)

    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 6:20 AM

      moon, You say, Al, please persist in your ignorance…you’re the only one qualified to do it.

      Right moon, & moon, please persist in your perception…you’re one of very few qualified to do it. (:<

  6. Adask

    February 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM

    Thanks for the compliments. I hope you’re right.

  7. Roger

    February 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

    – Benjamin Franklin

  8. dog-move

    February 24, 2015 at 3:43 AM

    The Lord abhors an unjust weight and measure. My money weighs a lot more that those that have faith in the fiat artifice.
    Could those that have faith in fiat, be in open rebellion to the Laws of Nature and Natures God?
    Thy Law is a lamp unto my feet.

  9. palani

    February 24, 2015 at 6:28 AM

    Gen. i:3: fiat lux “let there be light”

    There need not be a sufficient supply of gold to substitute for all Federal Reserve Notes in existence. Just like when you create the type of contract called a trust the creators of that trust only need a table and a chair between the two of them. With any contract there must be something called substance. How much substance is entirely debatable. Common law contracts come in two forms

    1) one dollar and other valuable considerations
    2) one dollar love and affection

    In either form only one dollar is necessary to fulfill the requirement for substance.

    So what happens when you only use a FRN in your ‘contracts’ and have no substance to speak of? Well, you can’t complain in a court of law about the performance of your opposite. But not to worry. The PTB have foreseen this failure and have come up with EQUITY for you to complain to and with equity you get INJUNCTION and CONTEMPT OF COURT. These should be sufficient reasons to give a motivation how to get back into a court of LAW.

    • moon

      February 24, 2015 at 11:13 AM

      Ahhhhh…the “benefits” of administrative process. It’s all been provided for sheeple.

      If gold and silver are not viable as the only substances mentioned for the coining money in the Constitution For The United States Of America, then why did the writers of that Constitution mention them at all?

      Roger and Henry, you’re still proposing arguments in favor of BIG government, a STRONG central bank, the scourges of inflation/deflation, the horrendous manipulation of markets, and a HUGE welfare system. Have you not been convinced by history that those atrocities don’t work?

      A true testing of gold/silver as money, according to the Constitution, has not been sufficiently the current century, or the previous two centuries, to my knowledge. The reason is that it would eliminate the fraud mentioned in the previous paragraph.

      Palani just blew you out of the water concerning your pitch that there’s not enough gold for a gold standard. There’s a reason that a gold standard would be a STANDARD…it would eliminate the fraud previously mentioned.

      Also, it’s not government that Constitutionally runs things, it’s we the people, remember?

      Still hoping you have enough gold and silver to set your own price.

  10. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 2:07 PM

    14th Amendment > Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
    This IS the law whether we like it or not. I HATE it but, IF the public debt of the United States, shall not be questioned, it alse seems to be true that the “medium of exchange” adding to, or subtracting from “that debt” cannot be questioned either. Therefore, section 4 of the 14th Amendment appears to fart in the face of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,

  11. palani

    February 24, 2015 at 2:40 PM


    The 14th amendment is voidable. The day before this amendment went into affect 15 Stat 223 was passed for the PROTECTION OF AMERICANS IN FOREIGN STATES or by its other name THE EXPATRIATION ACT. But then there is the matter of $346,681,016 dollars which is the public debt of the United States (senior) as opposed to the trillions of dollars which is the public debt of United States (junior) aka ‘the Democracy’.

    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 1:04 AM

      I apologize. I reckon my question was too stupid to answer. Confusion begets confusion.

  12. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM

    palani, @ > THE EXPATRIATION ACT.
    Let’s say, just for the sake of a point, that 3 of the “Founding Fathers” were alive the day before this amendment went into affect & 15 Stat 223 was passed. What did they need to expatriate from?

    • palani

      February 25, 2015 at 6:07 AM

      @ Eric “What did they need to expatriate from?”

      Due process consists of notice and opportunity to inquire. If you (or they) ignore the opportunity to inquire then silence creates a quasi-state of affairs. Fortunately law handles this deficiency by a concept of ‘nunc pro tunc’ or, from the beginning. Once you (or they) actually NOTICE something happening that they don’t consent to you (or they) can go back to the point where they SHOULD HAVE taken notice and correct their defect nunc pro tunc. Expatriation is just such an action. Once you (or they) have determined the cause of the discomfort then it might be whisked away and banished from causing future discomfort. However, if you are an oyster you have no ability to expatriate that bit of sand inside your shell so all you can do is coat it with pearl material.

      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 7:59 AM

        @ > Due process consists of notice and opportunity to inquire.
        Thank you. We have, or, I think we have two due process of law powers/provisions on/in/at the Federal level. Which one of the two are you referring to? Also, I have been “advised” that any Federal OR State Constitutional due process of law provision is PURVIEWED via the due process of law clause of/in that beloved 14th Amendment. So, I’m in a quandary. I also think this quandary has something to do with 5 to 4 S.Ct. decisions.renderings/opinions. Thanks for responding. P.S. any thumbs up you get you can bet cho sweet bippy one is from me. I like yer werk. :)

      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 9:32 AM

        @Eric “We have, or, I think we have two due process of law powers/provisions on/in/at the Federal level. Which one of the two are you referring to?”
        The organic section of the federal constitution has been set aside and replaced with a simple paragraph or four colloquially called “THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT”. The DEMOCRACY so formed by this new constitution is controlled solely by these few paragraphs and details are a bit sketchy. Why else then have two DUE PROCESS clauses… one in the organic and one in the new constitution? My interpretation is that the original due process clause was set aside when the organic constitution was abandoned in 1868. This then leaves the DEMOCRACY in the position of being the insurgent government discussed in that self-same 14th amendment or from the other perspective the organic federal government displaced in 1868 is the insurgent government declared by the DEMOCRACY. Either way the organic government called The United States of America abandoned repayment of $346,681,016 of which I hold $5 in the form of a 1862 note and ONE OF THESE DAYS I AM COMING CALLING TO COLLECT AND THEY BETTER NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE 14TH AMENDMENT!!!!

  13. Eric

    February 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM

    ok ok ok !!! wow. IF I was rich I would hire you to be my Body guard. Salary, Noooooooo Problem. I wish I could be with you when cumuh a callin. I’m serious. ANYWAY, this expatriating stuff is way over my head, but let me ask you this. Does expatriation, in the sense you are referring to mean, not being aligned with, subject to the U,S. & ITS, not their, but ITS Jurisdiction? Thank you for responding AND your patience. Remember now, we all can’t be astute like you are.

  14. palani

    February 25, 2015 at 5:39 PM

    @Eric “Does expatriation, in the sense you are referring to mean, not being aligned with, subject to the U,S. & ITS, not their, but ITS Jurisdiction?”
    Expatriation is from the 14th amendment. The sense is to arrive back at a condition I might have been in had the 14th amendment never been passed. Although you might also interpret the expatriation act as the right to pack up and move wherever you like in the world I choose to be more comfortable in the land I was born on and in a condition where the 14th amendment is not capable of mischief.

    • palani

      February 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM

      @ Eric “by having to renunciate in the presence of a consular official which is what I am advised we must do.”
      Brain synapses occasionally cross and what you read is not what is stated. Nowhere in 15 Stat 223 is ReNUNCIATION intended. Expatriation is not about declining something you never had and following all of the State Department’s prescribed rules for doing this. Rather the expatriation act is about making clear that the presumption assumed concerning participation in a DEMOCRACY designed for 14th amendment citizens has no application to one to whom this presumption does not apply. Just as you expect due process don’t you think it is fair to give due process as well?

      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 8:21 PM

        Why might it be true that we could only renounce our citizenship in the United States in the presence of a “consular official”?

        It occurs to me that all the rest of the governmental officers, officials and employees within the “United States” are “citizens” of the 14th Amendment “United States” and legally incompetent to recognize, allow, validate the renunciation of another “citizen of the United States”.

        But maybe, just maybe, those who are holding an office outside the territory of the “United States” are actually employed by “The United States of America” and are therefore capable of recognizing and implementing the renunciation of US citizenship by one of the “people” of The United States of America.

        Does that make any sense to anyone?

      • palani

        February 26, 2015 at 3:14 PM

        @Adask “Why might it be true that we could only renounce our citizenship in the United States in the presence of a “consular official”?”
        My interpretation is that your physical presence within another country when you perform this act makes it unlikely that you will ever return to your place of birth. I believe I recall that Dennis Craig had another method, that of sending a registered document through diplomatic channels to the U.S. embassy in Canada. Been a while since I looked at his documents.

        In any event renouncing a citizenship (14th amendment based) that I never had is like recording a quit claim deed on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. There never was any interest on that parcel anyway so no loss.

    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 5:46 AM

      @ Expatriation is from the 14th amendment
      palani something ain’t adding up here. IF I am a Negro, & IF I am understanding you, then, all I need to do is expatriate & then I am not considered a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen & subject to ITS Jurisdiction. OK THEN, where does that place me, i.e. what will I be deemed to be by the peace officers & judges? IF I say under the penalty of perjury that I have expatriated & I am not a 14th Amendment citizen, I can just see the judge agreeing & saying case dismissed & wow then I can have this ORANGE monkey suit OFF in a little while. Ohhhhh BOY !!!! WHEW-PEEE.

      • palani

        February 28, 2015 at 6:54 AM

        @ Eric “where does that place me”
        Wherever you declare yourself to be. Where would you LIKE to be? If you are looking for a suggestion you might find the audio version of The Master Key System in a library near you. You might find What the Bleep … Down the Rabbit Hole dvd set. These do not directly answer your question but might help with visualizing how to get to an answer.

        It doesn’t matter so much what others do to you as what you are prepared to do to (or for) yourself.

  15. Eric

    February 25, 2015 at 6:20 PM

    Palani, Thanks again. There are several Court opinions I rely on that in essence say the 14th Amendment does not apply to me. One is, Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43 year of 1872

    Here is a short but complete statement from the above case,The Court said:

    No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.
    I am not a Racist. HOWEVER, I also believe via trickery/deception, etc. I can be amenable to the Fart, excuse FOURTeenth by participating in benevolent guhmunt benefits, e.g. Social Security, & many other things Fedco offers. With the comprehension I have, I see nary a need to expatriate. IF Thomas Jefferson was living in the days of the,15 Stat 223, I cannot see him expatriating, eyethur, especially HIM, by having to renunciate in the presence of a consular official which is what I am advised we must do. Anyway, it don’t mattuh no mo. Thanks for your help. I do wish there was something I could do for you. Maybe someday I can. I hope so.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s