Our Debt-Based Monetary System

30 May

The Rules of a Debt-Based Monetary System [courtesy Google Images]

The Rules for a Debt-Based Monetary System
[courtesy Google Images]

What follows is mostly speculation.

I’m going to explore several premises and, using my version of “logic,” build on those premises.

I’m not claiming that my premises are necessarily true. I’m not claiming that my “logic” is necessarily logical.

I am claiming that these premises and my “logic” lead to some hypothetical conclusions about our debt-based monetary system that are at least interesting and perhaps surprising.

Money & Banks

Throughout most of recorded history, whenever there was a monetary system, it was asset-based. The “money” was some sort of tangible asset that had already been produced and/or already existed. These assets weren’t promises; they were facts like like bushels of wheat, buck skins, jugs of corn liquor, beads, iron ingots, heads of cattle, and gold or silver coins.

Mankind’s concept of money (an asset) evolved to the point where “money” was gold or silver and, unlike cattle or other forms of “money,” was sufficiently “concentrated” to be easily stored, hidden, or stolen.

Banks sprang up which would store and protect a depositor’s wealth in the safety of a banker’s strong box or vault. Bankers weren’t necessarily the smartest guys in town, but they were the biggest, meanest thugs that could be found. If anyone wanted to steal your money from the banker’s strong box, they’d have to first fight the banker—not an easy task.



Bank customers would deposit their gold or silver into the banker’s strong box, and the banker would issue a paper certificate (a debt-instrument) which promised to repay the deposited gold (an asset) to the depositor whenever he presented the paper certificate (a debt-instrument) to the banker for redemption.

Depositors quickly learned that, instead of going to the bank to withdraw one ounce of gold to buy a new burro, the depositor could simply trade a paper certificate (debt instrument) denominated as worth one ounce of gold to the burro salesman. Then the burro salesman could redeem the paper debt-instrument by going to the bank to exchange the paper debt-instrument for an asset (one ounce of gold).

Discharging debts with paper debt-instruments was far more convenient than paying with gold.

Note that, in return for the burro, the burro salesman accepted a paper debt-instrument rather than an asset (gold). Also, the burro salesman accepted the inconvenience of having to walk to the banker, present the debt-instrument and receive an actual asset (one ounce of gold) as the actual payment for the burro.

(Principle: You’re not “paid” when you receive a debt-instrument. You’re only paid when you trade a debt-instrument for some tangible good, service or other asset.)

But if, on his way to the banker to exchange his paper debt-instrument for an asset (gold), the burro salesman sees a stack of mud bricks for sale for one ounce of gold, he could purchase those bricks with the same debt-instrument he’d received from the guy who bought the burro. Then, the brick salesman could spend the debt instrument with the local goat-herder to purchase four goats. Pretty soon, the whole community could be trading their labor and property (assets) for paper debt-instruments. Only rarely would anyone actually bring a paper-certificate/debt-instrument issued by the banker to the banker for redemption.


Counterfeit paper debt-instruments

Bankers began to realize that they could issue paper debt-instruments that were “counterfeit” because they weren’t issued in trade for an actual deposit of gold into the banker’s strongbox. There was no gold to “back” these counterfeit debt-instruments.

Bankers could still spend these counterfeit notes knowing that they’d almost never be redeemed by people coming to the bank to demand an asset (gold) in return for the counterfeit paper debt-instrument issued by the banker. Soon, by using counterfeit paper debt-instruments, the banker began to buy up all of burros, all of the mud bricks and just about everything else—until he literally owned the whole community, purchased with nothing but paper debt-instruments with no intrinsic value (they weren’t backed by gold or silver assets).


Rise of the Debt-Based Monetary System

Then, seeing that the people so seldom redeemed their paper debt-instruments for assets (gold or silver), government and/or bankers (is there really a difference?) reduced and eventually eliminated the requirement that their “currency” (counterfeit debt-instruments) be backed by an assets (gold/silver). In doing so, they established a monetary system based solely on debt—mere, intangible “promises to pay”—issued by the bankers and/or government.

In these debt-based monetary systems, debt (a mere promise to someday pay with an asset) is treated as wealth—a payment and asset.

In theory, under this debt-is-wealth system, if I merely promised to pay you $1 million, you’d be suddenly wealthy. Based on my mere promise to pay, you could become an “instant” millionaire. Of course, in practice, you wouldn’t accept my promise to pay $1 million, but you would usually accept the government’s promise to pay $1 million.

Governments like debt-based monetary systems because they never have to actually pay (exchange some tangible product/asset like food or gold) for their debt-instruments—they need only promise to pay their debts.

Because promises (debts) can be easily created with the stroke of a pen, the debt-based monetary system allows government to “spin” currency (counterfeit debt-instruments) “out of thin air”. In a debt-based monetary system, to “make money,” you don’t need to make tangible “things” (which require real effort, investment and hard work to produce)—you need only make intangible promises to pay. I love you, the check is in the mail, etc.. Promises—which usually turn out to be lies—are sufficient collateral for a debt-based monetary system.

When debt is deemed to be wealth, government creates more “wealth” by issuing more bonds (promises to pay) and going deeper into debt.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Fractional reserve banking is a sensible and necessary banking policy which allows banks to lend out some maximum percentage of its customers’ total deposits while keeping some minimum “fraction” of the customers’ deposits in the bank vault.

For example, suppose customers had deposited $1 million into a bank and, by law, the maximum percentage the bank could lend out was 90% of those deposits ($900,000) and had to keep at least 10% ($100,000) in the vault just in case any of the depositors wanted to withdraw some of their funds or close their accounts. In essence, banks could lend $9 out of every $10 deposited into the bank. But, viewed from another perspective, banks could lend $9 for every $1 they held in their vaults.

The difference between these two perspectives (lending 90% of whatever was deposited and lending $9 dollars for every dollar held in the bank vault) may not seem insignificant significant. However, I suspect that this “other perspective” (that banks could lend $9 dollars for every dollar held in the vault) may be the key to understanding modern banking practices. I’ll soon show you why.

Bank Runs

Banks knew from long experience that, statistically, depositors would (almost) never seek to withdraw more than 10% of total deposits on the same day. Thus, banks could safely loan 90% of deposits and collect enough interest on that those loans to allow the bank to profit and stay solvent.

In the unlikely event of an emergency that drove all of the depositors to want to suddenly withdraw all of their bank deposits, that would be a “panic” or “run on the bank”. As explained by George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, the bank couldn’t pay all of the deposits to all of its depositors because 90% of their deposits were loaned out.

If forced by depositors’ demands to admit it was unable to redeem their deposits with assets, a bank might be forced to declare insolvency and be closed or sold off to the highest bidder.

Bank runs were dangerous but unlikely.


The Mother of Invention

Fractional reserve banking was necessary since, if banks couldn’t or wouldn’t lend out any of its deposits, banks couldn’t entice customers to deposit their assets into the bank to earn interest nor could banks prosper by charging interest on loans to borrowers. Worse, without those deposited assets circulating as loans into the local economy, that economy would tend to wither.

Without fractional reserve banking (lending 90% of deposits and keeping a 10% “fraction” in the bank vault), banks would instead have to generate profits by charging fees (negative interest rates) on deposits. I.e., if customers deposited $1 million into the bank, the bank would hold 100% of those deposits in the bank vault, but would be forced to deduct, say, 2% ($20,000) as an annual “deposit fee” on those deposits.

As I said, fractional reserve banking is reasonable and necessary—provided that it’s applied only to the deposits made by the banks’ depositors.


Legalizing Debt as an Asset

Government/bankers passed laws that allowed fractional reserve banks to purchase government bonds (debt-instruments; mere promises to pay) and use those bonds as collateral (“assets”) in their bank vaults. That’s when the “fun” began.

Let’s suppose that a bank had collected $1 million in deposits from depositors. The bank could lend 90% ($900,000) of that $1 million to borrowers. If the bank charged 10% interest on those loans, it could profit by 10% of the $900,000 loaned = $90,000 per year based on the $1 million deposited by private customers.

But again, note that, from a different perspective, it might be said that, under fractional reserve banking, banks can lend $9 for every $1 held as collateral in the bank vault. From that perspective, by adding more collateral to its vault, a bank could make more loans and charge more interest, and generate higher profits.

For example, if banks purchased U.S. bonds and held them in their vaults as collateral, banks might be able lend up to 9 times the face value of the government bonds (debt-instruments). Do you see the distinction?

I.e., if ordinary depositors deposited $1 million into the bank, the bank could lend 90% of those deposits ($900,000) at say, 10% interest, and earn $90,000 in income.

However, I suspect that if the bank itself purchased and deposited a $1 million U.S. bond into its vault, it could lend out 9 times the face value of that bond. That would be $9 million in loans at 10% interest—which would equal $900,000 in bank income based on an original investment of a mere $1 million to buy the bond.

This policy wouldn’t mean that banks could lend out 90% of the the total $1 million in deposited U.S. bonds. It would mean that banks could lend up to 9 times of the face value of the U.S. bonds.

If this suspicion were correct and you were a banker, what would you rather do? Lend $900,000 of bank depositors’ deposits to earn $90,000? Or lend $9 million based on your purchase of a $1 million U.S. bond and earn $900,000?


Irresistible Incentive

This hypothetical 9X multiplier would provide an irresistible incentive for banks to purchase U.S. Bonds.

For example, suppose a bank spent $1 million purchasing a $1 million U.S. bond. Suppose that the bank could use that $1 million bond as collateral to lend another previously non-existent $9 million in the form of consumer loans to the public. Suppose the bank could charge 10% interest on those $9 million in consumer loans. That would allow the banks to potentially collect $900,000 in annual interest on an initial investment of $1 million used to purchase the government’s bond. That’s a potential 90% annual rate of Return On Investment (“ROI”) on the bank’s purchase of government bonds!

If banks charged only 5% interest on its $9 million in consumer loans (derived from the $1 million U.S. bond), that would still result in a 45% annual ROI on the original $1 million expenditure!

Where can you hope to get a legal 45% annual return on your investments?

That hypothetically-huge ROI under fractional reserve banking would provide an irresistible lure for banks to purchase government’s intangible, intrinsically-worthless, promises to pay (a/k/a U.S. bonds). That potential ROI would also guarantee that the U.S. government would (almost) always have creditors willing to purchase its “counterfeit” bonds that weren’t backed by gold or silver assets.

The Real Source of Monetary Stimulation

Thanks to the 9X multiplier that hypothetically attaches to U.S. bonds, private banks—not the government, per se, or even the Federal Reserve—would be the primary source of new currency and economic “stimulation”.

The government and/or Federal Reserve would provide the “seed capital” by printing and selling a $1 million bond, but it would the private banks that “stimulated” the economy by issuing easy-credit to the public worth up to 9 times the face value of the $1 million bond held as legal collateral in the banks’ vaults.

The local banks would be the greatest source of currency “spun out of thin air”.


Confidence Lost

However, if private banks wouldn’t lend to “consumers” because the economy was in shambles and the banks had lost confidence in the public’s capacity to repay their debts, the debt-based monetary system could break down. Without more lending (debt-creation), the debt-based monetary system would fail.

Similarly, if consumers wouldn’t borrow from the private banks because the economy was in shambles and consumers had lost confidence in their own ability to repay additional debt, the debt-based monetary system would break down. Without more borrowing (debt-creation), the debt-based monetary system would fail.

Consumers might also refuse to borrow if they lost confidence in government’s ability to create more inflation that allows consumers to repay their debts with “cheaper” dollars. I.e., low inflation rates—or worse, deflation—inhibits borrowing (debt-creation) and causes the debt-based monetary system to fail.

Most importantly, a debt-based monetary system will collapse if private banks lose confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to repay its debts (U.S. bonds) and therefore stop buying government bonds.

For example, suppose the National Debt grew so large that everyone knew that government could never redeem its existing debt instruments (U.S. bonds). Potential creditors would refuse to purchase more government bonds. If private banks refused to purchase more government bonds, they wouldn’t have more collateral to warrant lending 9 times the face value of new bonds to the public. Without the “stimulation” of 9X lending, the economy could fail.


Helicopter Currency

I suspect that circa A.D. 2000-2007, banks issued “liars loans” because competent consumers were no longer borrowing enough to sustain the debt-based Ponzi scheme. The “liar’s loans” were intended to induce incompetent borrowers (those clearly incapable of repaying their debts) to borrow and create debt-instruments (mortgages).

Why? Because the mortgages could be bundled into mortgage-backed “securities” that could be sold to banks around the world to be used as collateral to lend up to 9 times their face value as consumer loans.

Once the Great Recession began in A.D. 2007-2008, private banks (burned by liars’ loans?) refused to lend more to consumers and/or consumers (burned by home foreclosures?) refused to borrow more.

Then, maybe . . . maybe . . . government countered by essentially giving trillions of free, “helicopter” dollars to major, “too-big-to-fail” banks.

Why? Because government expected those banks to lend those “free” trillions to consumers and thereby stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately, the bankers just sat on their windfalls and either refused to lend free currency to consumers and/or consumers refused to borrow the “easy credit” from the bankers.

Result? Without public confidence in the government’s and/or public’ ability to repay their debts, public confidence in the debt-based monetary system waned. Without that essential confidence (as in “con-game”), government’s ability to borrow new funds (go deeper into debt) and spend more currency into the economy was inhibited, leaving the economy stagnant and the “recovery” illusory.


No Balanced Budget Laws

If this line of conjecture is roughly correct, it explains why both major political parties refuse to pass balanced budget laws.

I.e., if the budget had to be “balanced,” government could spend only as much as it received in tax revenues. Thus, under a balanced budget amendment, government couldn’t borrow more funds and thereby create more debt instruments that are deemed to be “assets” and are the lifeblood of the debt-based monetary system. With an exact balance between tax revenue and spending, government couldn’t create more bonds for bankers to use as collateral in the 9X fractional reserve banking scheme that seems to “stimulate” the economy.

Result? The whole, debt-based monetary system would collapse.

Presuming that both major political parties know that a balanced budget amendment would kill the debt-based economy, it follows that neither party will truly support such amendment.


Big, Bigger Government

Similarly, this conjecture could explain why everyone in the Congress, Senate and White House believes in ever-bigger government programs. Democrats want bigger programs for the poor. Republicans want bigger programs for the military. Government grows like topsy.

Why? Because bigger programs mean bigger debts. A constantly-growing government generates the increased debt that appears to be vital to sustain the debt-based economy.

Yes, Republicans still promise to be “fiscal conservatives,” but they can’t keep that promise. In a debt-based monetary system, any attempt to significantly reduce government borrowing could collapse the economy. So long as we have a debt-based monetary system, fiscal conservatism is the economic equivalent of a cup of hemlock. Drink it and die.

Implication? Big government is the not merely the driving force behind a debt-based monetary system, big government is a principle consequence of a debt-based monetary system.

The moment we Americans gave up our gold- and silver-backed money, we guaranteed that our government would grow like a cancer until it consumed us all, destroyed our productivity, and collapsed our economy and perhaps, our nation.


The Way of All Ponzi-Schemes

If our debt-based monetary system is truly based on the banks capacity to lend $9 for every $1 in U.S. bonds that they holds in their vaults, and the whole system depends on ever-increasing debt—then our monetary system is a Ponzi scheme no different from the one that got Bernie Madoff to spend the rest of his life in the slammer.

If our loss of prosperity and liberty is the consequence of big government, and big government is a consequence of a debt-based monetary system—then it follows that America cannot see a real recovery of our former economic prosperity or of our former liberties lost to big government—until we abandon our debt-based Ponzi scheme and return to an asset-based (gold and silver) monetary system.

As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, government is no more able to fully repay the National Debt or voluntarily stop going deeper into debt than Bernie Madoff was able to repay his debts or stop selling more “promises to pay” to new customers.

In a debt-based monetary system, debt (mere promises to pay) is government’s most important—and only—product. Those promises can’t be kept.

Those who buy or rely on government debt (promises to pay) are investing their hopes and wealth in debt-instruments that, for the most part, won’t ever be repaid and are not only intrinsically worthless but also dangerous to the point of self-destruction.



Tags: , , , ,

19 responses to “Our Debt-Based Monetary System

  1. mohammed saleem

    May 31, 2016 at 2:52 AM

    That is why GOD created gold and silver to make it easier for humans to exchange goods and services and prosper so they can worship him in comfort. The basic premise behind the Ponzi scheme of the governments is Atheism. There is no GOD–we are gods.

  2. David Merrill

    May 31, 2016 at 6:58 AM

    The incoherence behind the commercial priestcraft is that RUACH is substituted for NESHEMAH in the “Breath of Life” that God breathed into Adam. I have encountered it in Protestant, Catholic and initially Jewish teaching from the pulpit, and since first discovering it from a Jewish Qabbalist, have always found it curious.

    But it is so plain. We create the universe. The universe is infinite – and so is Mind. Adam was instilled with the Mind of God, not his Emotions. RUACH is associated with emotion. NESHEMAH is associated with mind. NESHMAT CHAIM is God’s Mind, and that is what He breathed into Adam.

    Therefore I think that you are misguided. The Tontine is propagated through a fundamental teaching that comes from the pulpits into the religious separatists – those who feed guilt in sin. – But now envision sin as the emotion you feel when you wrong your neighbor or yourself.

    This post might take you back to an important cusp Alfred – to the Wichita National Grand Jury.


    “Dear Suitors;

    This really smacks of how intelligent the brain trust really is. It may come out in the wash, but for now I presume, that a graduate student with access to the website has “omitted” Title 12 USC §95a from the displayed statutes on Cornell Law.

    Cornell Law. (linked in the broadcast)
    US GPO. (linked in the broadcast)

    This section of the CODE is the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

    Ҥ95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties

    (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—

    (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
    (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest…”

    Which is to say, the outstanding accusation of “hoarding” gold that kept the Fed up and running past its 20-year charter expiring in 1933.

    I wrote an email to the staff at Cornell Law – subject line “Breach of Trust”:

    Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

    I find it a bit disturbing that, let’s presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress… by “Omitting” statutes from the US Code.

    Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

    It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.

    Thank you.
    David Merrill.”

    I may never know for sure, but this is the kind of thing that transpires when people become enlightened and quit fighting long enough to explore, and discover the truth.”

    Needless to say, there are no mistakes. All things work for the good. – And it just keeps getting better and better.

    • Adask

      May 31, 2016 at 10:25 AM

      “But it is so plain. We create the universe”? I disagree. Perhaps you’re only speaking metaphorically, but as I read your text you seem to believe that “we” somehow actually do “create the universe”.

      If that were true, how did “we” all agree on what that “universe” would be? Why is Mars the “red planet” for all? Why didn’t some of us “create” that element of our “universe” to be green, purple or awash with pure water and tropical beaches? If there is a persistent and objective reality, and if that reality is a “creation,” it follows that that reality has but a single Creator with a single vision and purpose. If “we” all somehow participated (participate?) in the creation of the universe (reality), there’d be so much incoherence and lack of persistence that our “universe” would be like a kaleidoscope on LSD.

      More, the reason “God” is “God” is that He is the Creator. He created all of it from the trees in the front yard, to Mars, and on out thousands of light years into the cosmos. It is by virtue of being the Creator that He owns it all and can do whatever he likes with it. This awesome power is duplicated to small extanet in our patent and copyright laws that recognize earthly “creators” (inventors and authors) as entitled by their acts of earthly “creation” to intitally own perfect title to their creations. When “God” says, “The next time, the fire,” he’s not threatening to commit some horrendous crime like arson on a global or even universal scale. As the Creator He is entitled to do whatever He pleases with His creations–just as any ordinary inventor can use, sell, hide or destroy his invention.

      On big difference between God’s creations and man’s is that man can own (hold exclusive title to) his “creations” for a brief number of years. Man’s titles to his creations are temporary. God’s “title” to the universe lasts forever.

      We are not the “creators” of the universe. If we were, we would be gods. We are one of the multitude of creations created by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym–but different from all other creations in that we, alone, are “made in God’s image”.

      If you are really claiming that we created and continue to create the universe, and God the Creator is real, your claim is blasphemy. I doubt that you can both continue to commit blasphemy and enjoy a world that “just keeps getting better and better”.

      • David Merrill

        May 31, 2016 at 1:35 PM

        Exactly Alfred. I mentioned this on the other blog post. The isolated separatist perceptions come from valuing the cerebral memory more than cellular memory. Balance them.

        Or do the math. If God is everywhere, then how can we not be (in) God?

        Have you ever heard a theoretical physicist say how there is as much energy in a pencil as was found in Mt Saint Helens when it erupted? Like that. Or e=mc^2 demonstrates centripetal force like the water staying in the bottom of a bucket when you swing it around fast enough. So imagine how much energy it takes to bend a beam of light into just one electron valence shell! – And that is just one.

        So now you might attribute that kind of energy to God, outside yourself. So again you bump into an infinite God and if infinite, then where is there room in the universe for you if you are not (in) God?


        You demonstrate well a ganglia memory conditioning. Like an allergic reaction. What I was pointing out is that the Mind of God is instilled into us, through the Breath of Life breathed into Adam. This truth is circumnavigated through the commercial priestcraft by saying that it is Emotion = RUACH, not Mind = NESHEMAH. God put the Mind of God in Adam, not the Emotions of God.

      • cathy baldwin

        June 10, 2016 at 12:51 AM


      • cathy baldwin

        June 10, 2016 at 12:53 AM

        To Alfred’s comment. (excellent).

  3. David Merrill

    May 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM

    That debt has substance is an illusion.

  4. sedonadeb

    May 31, 2016 at 10:06 AM

    I wrote a blog a month ago to show that the concept of Debt does not exist in the natural world. That is,no other living thing on Earth imposes debt on his neighbor. All living things have equal access to Earth’s resources. As Earth’s caretakers, so should human beings. Yesterday, another smart lady noticed this as well and has proposed what she calls an “Heirship Economy. See her Youtube here:

    My blog “Free Flowing Prosperity” is posted at:

    • David Merrill

      May 31, 2016 at 1:24 PM

      I like you.

    • cynthia

      June 6, 2016 at 7:59 AM

      Excellent! I wish more would “get it” and Awaken from the Capitalistic brainwashing

  5. David Merrill

    May 31, 2016 at 1:41 PM

    If you do not redeem by demand, then you do not own. This is another reflection of Creator God within us. If you endorse private credit from the Fed, then you accept the Fed’s use of your substance in fractional lending. This also means the Fed will retain an interest in whatever you discharge with its private credit.

    There you might see how your own model of “God’s Ownership” works, after Redemption.

  6. David Merrill

    June 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM


    Lately I have also mentioned some things about Creation and Ownership; and how they are so closely interrelated. It delights me to get a suitor on the brain trust encouraging Michael Joseph and me.

    “David & MJ,

    I rarely, (about never) speak to the dialog(s) and discourse undertaken by & among yourselves, but just want to say “Thanks” for stimulating the gray matter, and prompting a process of growth & inquiry.

    As I look to travel up the mountain I see numerous trails. Some I’ve learned were switch backs, others dead ends. But, herein there is always meat & drink. I frequently labor to digest, but such is the nature of this adventure.”

    Keep it up.”

    I believe that encouragement has arrived at the very moment I can concisely describe how and why it seems confusing some times, whether to choose retaliation or forgiveness. From my previous broadcast:

    “This is an important mathematical Key comprehending foundations of priestcraft. In context of Passages and the visiting lecturers I noticed David Lyle JEFFREY. PhD, FRSC Baylor University while lecturing about Beauty in the Bible, making this substitution and so mentioned this to him. His reply: “I very much appreciate this note, and the important distinction you articulate. I think that you’ll be correct in assuming that the reflexive association of Ruah with neshemah in someone like myself owes to a teaching tradition. In my case that is evangelical rather than Catholic, and to some degree Jewish as well, since I reflect on chumash and read Talmud quite often. So thanks for this—you have prompted me to look into the matter further.””

    This is as big a Key as Redemption, and could be argued is exactly the same thing. It is also the Key to Ownership, whether you consider yourself redeemed by God, or as being instilled with God’s Mind, yourself as Creator. “They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…” And if you ever find yourself angry or even attacking another for being at peace, please take a breath and consider that this is likely how you always find yourself on the wrong side of the Trading with the Enemy Act. In other words if you find it easy to point your finger at somebody who considers themselves God and Creator of the entire universe, maybe you should try it yourself some time. If you include everybody and everything into the Mind of God, instilled into you, then it is no threat whatsoever.

    What got me to this breakthrough is waiting for the staff at Cornell Law School to correct a private website omission of the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917). As I pointed out:

    Cornell Law / uscodes Title 12 USC 411 photo – “Omitted”.

    However, according to Congress there is no such “omission”. Cornell’s notes describe the reason to omit the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers’ Code (Titles 12 and 31) is because it is found repeated in Title 50, the Military Code. Congress is a legislative body and Cornell is a law school – mission: education.

    So I wrote to the staff at Cornell Law School:

    SUBJECT: Breach of Trust

    Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

    I find it a bit disturbing that, let’s presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress… by “Omitting” statutes from the US Code.

    Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

    It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.

    Thank you.
    David Merrill.

    I got one reply, that she would not be answering her messages until after the holiday weekend. So I know the emails arrived okay. Now I have silence leaving my imagination to wander all over reasoning why to “Omit” the TWEA from the mind/education of the public, especially within the scope of it affecting banking. I might give it a couple more days. It truly does not seem a big thing, to just correct it back the way it was or maybe just write me a short explanation why they feel at Cornell Law School, they do not need to repeat repetitive codes.

    Surely it would not be that the TWEA has nothing to do with banking. It is the heart and soul of the Secretary and/or the President being able to declare a Bankers’ Holiday. It was Americans ‘hoarding’ gold that justified FDR declaring war on the Great Depression.

    David Merrill.

  7. cynthia

    June 6, 2016 at 7:55 AM

    Take into consideration that at least two possibly three or more international countries now have Waived or Forgiven the false “debt” and refuse to pay the extortionists (smile) Also there are pockets upon America, not same as UNITED STATES, which have changed part of their monetary system to local “home made” honor based ‘money’ some are TimeBank or TimeDollar another is Ithica Dollars for Ithica New York, another is Baltimore Bucks in Baltimore Maryland for a few.

    • David Merrill

      June 6, 2016 at 8:21 AM

      I recall a barter system that went into place in Colorado. Somebody paid me with $125 worth of “dollars”. Interestingly, the only default/dishonor I found was from a Chinese restaurant, that sold to new Chinese owners. They put up a little sign by the cash register saying they no longer honored the barter bucks, but who reads the notices on the way in?

      They made such a stink about it I left my driver license while I went to my bank for cash.

  8. cathy baldwin

    June 10, 2016 at 12:36 AM

    I read these posts a little later than I would like at times. According to the word of God, the entire Bible, things are quite black and white. Satan has opposed the Lordship of Yahweh for quite a long time now. New Age fundamentals are always leading in the direction of “get what you want”, create your reality, Satan’s ploy. The problem is God claims to be God. We are to trust and serve and obey, like you know, the Ten Commandments and Jesus’s two commands. Jesus saved me when I was 47, part of my confused and darkened understanding, briefly, was New Age thought. It collapsed quickly when He entered my life. Read the scriptures, after you commit to the LORD, there is nothing else required and if you venture out of this you may suffer, a lot.

    • David Merrill

      June 10, 2016 at 4:32 AM


      Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in flesh I live in faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave up Himself for me.

      Gal 2:21 I do not render useless the grace of God: for if righteousness come through law, then Christ died uselessly [for nothing].

      He who surrenders to the Administration of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ – lives under the Shadow [Direction] of the Almighty. Juxtapose that against living according to ego [man’s Own]. Just take that Own up the mountain and be willing to put a knife to its throat – enter a substitute – for the lesser cannot redeem the greater.

      For by the graces and mercy of the Lord is the creature transformed and resurrected in mind, spirit and body. But it is the work of God in the ONE LIFE. For if we beg that our life is apart from God then we are poly-theist. Being monotheist begs ONE LIFE.”

      Somebody I consider very smart said that yesterday.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s