Comment: Different

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What hard evidences do you have? (see in situ)


> "What hard evidences do you have that the US Treasury could never get corrupt while "creating" this currency?"


Well then that would be something different than what Lincoln was actually doing (US Greenbacks), and different than what John Kennedy was doing with his 1963 Series "United States Notes" too, and something different from the system I was defending.

Government can always be corrupted by Bribery, but if you remove the power and influence of that Bribery (Private Banking Interests and Global Private Banking dynasties), then yes ... accountable government is quite possible.

Also, nowhere have I said people could not store their money in gold. That's fine if it is voluntary. But if you care about choice, and if you care about freedom, then at least one currency option available to the public must be something that Private Bankers do not control, something that involves no debt to the public, and something that is managed by a transparent, auditable, publicly accountable process.

Anything in the private domain (commodities) is something that rich bastards (the Oligarchs) can ultimately control and monopolize. We see that with the price and "perceived" supply of gold/silver something that is clearly manipulated by J.P. Morgan, COMEX, and Central Banks. But The Bankers could not manipulate an exclusive Sovereign currency like Greenbacks, which is why The London Times article that I posted earlier reveals just what The Banksters were thinking, and what they were really afraid of ... that would take away their Empire (and their World Control). The Rothschilds basically confessed that Greenbacks would take away their power, make America debt-free, prosperous, and no longer subservient to them.

I accept their confession.