Well put Ingo. I, and I am sure many others have learned a great deal from you writings on the DB; and also from those arguing against you. I went a different route with my life. I considered all of this arguing to be a waste, so I did physical jobs. Now I can see that if "We The People" do not somehow take back our country, and indeed our world, we may be altogether doomed, if not damned.

Ironically our government goaded me into action by hiring me. I take seriously my oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. How many millions have taken an oath that includes those words; and how many of them can we count on to think, and uphold their oaths in a logical and moral manner?

Sometimes I can't help but think that I waste way too much time here; but those how write for the site and their followers challenge my thinking constantly, in ways too well argued to ignore.

Thank you, all of you.

memehunter, we find one we agree on.

Jeanna, thank you for adding to the discussion.

I already had much on my plate in disagreement with Ingo, I did not want to add this as it would seem glutinous. However, for him to state this as a proven fact is as much (or more) of a stretch as most of what he peddles here.

Any story of the origins of life on earth is based on faith. Any good, honest scientist or scholar would agree to this.

@ memehunter and Jeanna. Thank you. Very good, in fact a much better debate than I would have been able to come up with. There are so many holes in the Darwin theory that to declare it fact is outrageous. Good job.

Thanks Jeanna - I admit I did not wish to go as far as you did, because I anticipated hostile reactions and I wanted to see how other feedbackers would respond.

Dare I go further? I must!

John Horgan, staff writer at Scientific American has pointed out what many scientists outside of the evolutionary pseudo-scientists realize, namely that the idea of DNA molecules forming spontaneously has major problems. "DNA can make neither proteins, nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin-of-life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: which came first, proteins or DNA?" Feb 2011.

The theory of evolution continually evolves in order to move around unmoveable obstacles that threaten its postulates. It violates the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from living cells. It violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. It cannot answer the question of human sexuality, the human nervous system, the development of thought, the development of emotions, the marvel of the human eye, nor of the human brain, among many others.

The evolutionists admit that there are no transitional fossils. They have to skew the carbon dating method with their created time-table to allow for their billions of eons. (If left alone, the results of carbon dating come within 50 - 100 yrs, but it is not accurate.) They use circular reasoning to define the geologic column by the geologic strata, and then define the geologic strata by the geologic column. (They do not seem to consider that animals with 4 legs, or humans with 2 legs might be able to climb higher more rapidly during a flood than smaller animals would.)

I could bring many other points forward. But, the end sum is this: The origin-of-life (evolutionist) scientists admit they DO NOT KNOW how life began on earth. Since they do not know, cannot prove, and are only speculating, continually searching for an answer that satisfies them, then the teaching of evolution as fact, as a true science, is instead a belief system.

Since the teaching of this belief system has been sponsored and promoted by the state school system, that makes the teaching of evolution a state supported religion.

Why? I would suggest another meme for DB to consider. The Theory of Evolution promotes the idea that life is not created, therefore not special, and that humans are no different from any other animal. If Humans are only animals, then Human life is not precious, and of little value. If this idea is instilled in the minds of the populace, then they will not object very strongly when whole societies and entire cultures are killed off.

Ingo,

From what I read here, I am probably in disagreement with several of your positions, but not being American some of them are less relevant to me and, in any case, other feedbackers are already debating them with you.

However, I would like to discuss this point, brought up by Bluebird:

"As to the "arboreal ancestry" remarks, there is very little disagreement in scientific circles with the statement that the ancestors of "Humans" were arboreal beings. It is save to say, it is a proven fact. If you have information to the contrary, I am pleased to learn about it."

At the outset, I will state that I am not a Christian fundamentalist, nor I am a "Creationist" in the sense of believing in the Bible's version of events.

But I wil say that your point about our ancestors being "arboreal beings" is far from proven. In fact, it CANNOT be proven unless you were to somehow travel back in time. We can only offer conjectures. DNA analysis, fossil analysis, and datation techniques offer us clues and possible evidence, but they do not "prove" that our ancestors were "arboreal beings". Keep in mind that science itself is subject to the same manipulative pressures that politics, business, art, and culture have been subjected to over the last few centuries (and probably longer). This has been discussed several times on the DB.

To give you more specific arguments, long-term datation methods are far from reliable, even though the scientific establishment presents them otherwise. The Darwinian model itself may be only partially true (i.e., natural selection may play a role in micro-evolution, as suggested by the "Galapagos finches" but not in long-range and long-term "speciation", the differentiation into varied species, which has not been, and probably cannot be "proven" to follow the Darwinian model because of the time scale involved). I could give you several references, but Michael Cremo, who was interviewed here on the DB, is a good starting point (especially for those who automatically assume that people who are skeptical about Darwinism are somehow creationists or fundamentalists).

By the way, did you know that humans and dolphins share 13 identical chromosomes? That's right, 13 out of the 22 dolphin chromosomes are exactly the same as human chromosomes. Mainstream science usually doesn't talk much about this, emphasizing instead our relationship to apes. I'm not saying that humans have dolphin-like ancestors, just giving you some food for thought...

There are many other puzzling phenomena that cannot be explained easily by the "natural selection" theory. The putative evolution of the modern banana from the wild banana (an example I used here on the DB), which involves very advanced genetic manipulations that paleolithic farmers would likely have been unable to carry 10000 years ago (even though this is what mainstream science is forced to conclude right now), is one case. The sudden emergence of flower plants, which Darwin himself identified as a puzzle and which is still recognized as such in recent peer-reviewed papers, is another one.

With the "arboreal ancestry" remark, I am trying to point out that humans evolved when their "arboreal ancestors" were driven from their natural habitat in the trees, and then miraculously survived on the ground. In the short development from an arboreal being to a human being, nature failed to have time to genetically change the arborial being and its basic instincts. Nature helped the creature in its development by creating for it a large brain and self consciousness which let it survive on the ground. However, the basic instincts which the arborial being acquired over hundred of millions of years, are still the same in humans. These basic instinct are detrimental to peaceful living on the ground, and they must be controlled."

This is pure conjecture, a post-hoc "just so" story that doesn't prove anything. It doesn't matter that similar ideas are sometimes peddled by mainstream science, that does not make it more convincing ...

Adrian Krieg: "Worse is the fact that numerous airports and facilities around America have had their security services subcontracted to Israeli security firms. While the government contracts training to SPLC for federal agencies and smaller local state agencies follow their lead, SPLC is the most bias-twisted, anti-Christian organization in the land. The federal government has established links with the JDL, Mossad assets, the American Jewish Congress, the ADL and other Israeli operatives; while we cannot prove this we know it to be the case. The story put forth by the Mossad that everyone in government now accepts as gospel is that Israeli and American security issues are one and the same. This, upon examination of issues, is utterly ridiculous.

[... ]

In view of the Pollard, Franklin, Rosenberg and scores of Israeli spying operations against us and considering the USS Liberty affair, we would be wise to rely on our own security apparatus and not become entangled with the agencies of a nation which has for decades been most actively spying against us.

We are already underwater with Israeli telephone monitoring and billing operations that have been off-shored by domestic suppliers to Magal Security Systems, an Israeli contractor. Let's be cognizant of the fact that, according to information released last December, there is now operative monitoring of all electronic communications as well as GPS systems. We do not think it rational to allow such information to be subcontracted offshore."

-----------------------------
Memehunter: Interesting to see this printed on the DB. I got "killed" (metaphorically speaking) on the DB when I mentioned Zionist (OK, "Jewish Mafia") dominance over US politics a few months ago, but now this seems to be finally accepted as fact. If this truly represents an admission by the DB that "Jewish Mafia" control, especially in the domain of national security, may not be in the best interest of Americans, then hats off to the DB for being brave enough to admit this.

Ingo,

It's now becoming a Good time for me to go back to MetaPhoria . . . you dig?

Click to view link

It may get pretty Ugly for you over on the Catherine Austin Fitts thread, so, rather than us shooting our mouths off here . . . you hanging on my every word . . . you need to run, albeit hog tied, over there recant your illogicity.

My Bad?

No.

Just trying to get your mind to open up to irredeemable currency as being OK, as long as one group does not steal the lion's share . . . which cannot happen, because the lion is actually Aslan, who is the one that is really running the show.

Click to view link

So, without further ado, I am heading over there. I'll walk slowly . . . backwards . . .

Tonight, we find out who's really in charge, and what the Red Buttons mean.

Click to view link

I admire your quest for trying to understand the "big" picture. It is very difficult to do when you grow up in a culture that is purposely slanted in its basic and secondary education. This educational slant is supported by the popular culture, i.e. movies, magazines, etc. When the mass media reinforces this slanted understanding daily by newcasts and commercials, there is no wonder that you end up with a paradigm which necessarily defines your entire thinking and your opinions.

I was fortunate not to have been subjected to such a calculated creation of a common paradigm. Somehow, I formed my opinion independent of the popular promoted view. Events and political developments, as well as daily experiences, reinforced my understanding of how the world really works apart from the commonly excepted point of view. Over time, I gained confidence in the way I looked at things, despite the fact that it clashed with everything in the way it was generally perceived by the vast majority of people.

I urge you to keep on searching and trying to figure things out for yourself. To be successful in that effort, you have to keep an open mind and think for yourself. Be persuaded by logic, not emotions.

I am under no illusion about how my points of view clash with other people's paradigm. When your life rests on a certain paradigm, you do not like someone to come along and to kick over your perceptions.

In explaining why I write here, I want you to know that I don't take pleasure in upsetting people with the views I expressed in these threads. Frankly, I have plenty of other things to do than to write on the DB.

On the other hand, I am interested in having people evaluate their believes and reconsider their look at the world. Most people resent my attempts. They feel attacked. On the other hand, I am not an island onto myself. I must live in a country with them, and they vote. I want people to think for themelves, apart from the opinions given in the mass media propaganda and on the internet. It takes thinking, but thinking is not automatic. It must be practiced. That's why I write here.

When it comes to Henry George, the Constitution, Anglo-Saxon Law, etc., etc. much of these ideas were well understood a couple of hundred years ago. History is the guide to the future. The presently promoted paradigm is devoid of historical understanding, because it doesn't serve the power establishment.

Civilization is passed on from generation to generation. A society passes on values and morals by teaching and explaining, as well as by setting the example. Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is not passed on in the blood stream, it must be fought for by each generation again and again."

When material wellbeing puts people into a slumber, they fail to be vigilant in sustaining their freedom and liberty. They soon end up in tyrrany. I am interested in waking people up to have them take a different look at the world, and to convince them to stand up for the liberty and freedom promised them with the U.S. Constitution.

Click to view link

Pretty long as an adjunct to an article, but to the point and well done.

That is right you are not a flip flopper Ingo. It's a good thing mostly. You and A. J. did go round and round though, as you often do.

Two years ago I would have argued neocon positions till the cows come home, and thought others were stupid or treasonous to argue otherwise. If most of my education were not self inflicted I probably still would.

You have to admit, George's ideas are a pretty good leap for most people's way of thinking, even more in modern times than in his own. When I found out the origin of Real Estate I had a visceral reaction that is still with me decades later. Too emotional I guess.

"OK, Ingo. How come just hours later (08:18 PM) you responded to feedbacker BM, "there is NO private property in Land. It does not exist. (Read John Locke for the argument)" ?

Well, what is it now, Ingo? DO you or DON'T you "need anyone to do the talking" for you? Sounds to me like just another mutually exclusive statement ... as opposed to an alleged "challenge".

You make a fair point. Except, I unequivocally stated my opinion first and then referred BM to the basis for my opinion to the philosophical writings of John Locke. It's a bit different then sending me to a "link" where I am supposed to read someone else's opinion with the presumption that it is yours as well. Not quite the same, don't you agree... ???

As to all your talk about Iran, the thing you have to understand is that it is all about the value of the USD. The entire world economy depends on it.

As you know, I am not for a USD whose value depends on the quotation of oil by the Saudis. I am for the gold standard. However, the average person is better off, if a Gingrich administration can step down from the precepice of the "irredeemable" USD by creating a parallel currency.

This will proportionately hurt the monetary elite much more than the average man. That's why the central banking crowd will fight Iran, to gain maximum time before the total collapse of the USD occurs. When everything falls apart, it is much easier for the monetary elite to pick up the pieces than in taking a large hit by the installation of a "redeemable" parallel currency.

"When I give my opinins here, I very rarely use links to support my arguments. I don't need them. I don't need anyone to do my talking for me (... ) You either have an opinion of yourself, or you don't. If you do, why don't you state it, instead of refering me to someone else's opinion. "

---------------------

OK, Ingo. How come just hours later (08:18 PM) you responded to feedbacker BM, "there is NO private property in Land. It does not exist. (Read John Locke for the argument)" ?

Well, what is it now, Ingo? DO you or DON'T you "need anyone to do the talking" for you? Sounds to me like just another mutually exclusive statement ... as opposed to an alleged "challenge".

By the way, here are some facts and opinions that may indeed differ from your neoconservative talking points regarding Iran:

"What Iran's Jews Say"
Click to view link

"Anglo-Persian Oil Company"
Click to view link

"Operation Ajax"
Click to view linkétat

"October surprise 1980"
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link

"Iran-Contra affair"
Click to view link

"The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979"
Click to view link

"Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979"
Click to view link

"Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy"
Click to view link

"Which Path to Persia?: Redux - Syria, Libya, and beyond, Globalists prepare for second phase"
Click to view link

"Preparing the Battlefield"
Click to view link

"George Orwell on the Evil Iranian Menace"
Click to view link

"Iranian Terror Plot: Fake, Fake, Fake"
Click to view link

"To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them"
Click to view link

"Who Put the 'green' in the Green Revolution?"
Click to view link

"Anatomy Of The Color Revolution In Iran"
Click to view link

"Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end"
Click to view link

"Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel"
Click to view link

"State Department scrambling to move the MEK -- to a former U.S. military base?"
Click to view link

"American-backed Terrorists In Iran"
Click to view link

"More murder of Iranian scientists: still terrorism?"
Click to view link

'Wiped off the Map' - The Rumor of the Century"
Click to view link

PS:

'Each time any country wants to go nuclear, the United States will invent some kind of reason why that country does not deserve nuclear weapons. And each time it goes nuclear, nothing happens. It's all rubbish.'

'In the whole of history, who was more crazy than Josef Stalin? In the whole of history, who was more crazy than Mao Tsetung? I don't see that Ahmadinejad is more crazy than them. Maybe to the contrary. I listen to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, but I cannot think of even one case since 1980 and the Iranian Islamic Revolution that this country has behaved irrationally.'

Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem

Click to view link

PS 2:

"Iran comes out on top in secret simulated war games"
Click to view link

"Israel-Iran War Game Scenario Predicts Disaster"
Click to view link

Cheers!

Ingo, please find my replies here:

Click to view link


In order for the dialogue to flow, the post was far too long as I addressed each of your points. I feel it not appropriate to ask so much hospitality from DB.

Hi Ingo,

I'm now going over to see if you are willing to retract your Ministry of Truth statement:

"Think Weebley... .
You can create a pick (capital) and use it to mine gold. The amount of work (energy expended measured in joules) it takes to create the pick plus the amount of work (labor) it takes to mine and refine a certain amount of gold, compared to the amount of work (joules) required to create a large piece of mining equipment (capital) and the labor required to mine and refine the same amount of gold, has stayed constant over centuries when you add up the joules on both methods.
FYI, "Joules" are not part of your anatomy. A "Joule" is a term in physics that measures "work". It has to do with Newtons and moving mass over distance... ..but I think that is enough for you to handle right now."


Yep

I bought it hook, line and stinker . . . just to see what it was like to be in your world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what happened:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Think [Agent] Weebley . . .

What the Fig, Newton? Ingo's torque was confusing, and metred incomprehensibly.

At first, I could not believe what was laid out in front of me . . . my buddy, Ingo, was asking me to believe the unbelievable.

Labour saving devices save no labour! The industrial revolution has been a scam! Every labour saving device ever created, eventually robs the labour savings from the creator . . . how?

He was also asking me to forget that I am Energy!

I figured that it was time to enter Ingo's world today. That is why I disappeared.

Click to view link

I wanted to meet James Burke, the science guy, after I left the Shire, on my Hunt for answers.

The car I drove to find James Burke suddenly stopped, as the energy expended to make the car was unexpectedly used up. I kicked myself, as I should not have used the car that was 10.2343561 years old . . . the additional fuel I put in the tank for the trip had no effect . . . the car's use-by date had expired, but there was no sticker to that effect on the car. I had been robbed of the money I paid for that car. The worst part is that Ingo knew how much energy it took to make that car, and how much energy was expended in using the car, but didn't tell anyone.

So I got out and walked. Feeling tired, I decided I needed a bite, but it too had no effect.

I suddenly find I am floating in space . . . completely drained of the energy I thought I had, but don't.

Where's that Burke?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where are you, Ingo?

Go here: Click to view link

... and the best to you, Bluebird.

An interesting case for Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Bischoff. Gingrich was indeed impressive in his grasp of domestic policy in the GOP New Hampshire late night town halls. And he did give a nod to Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. But he called Ron Paul dangerous because he was not part of the neo-conservative bandwagon to rollover Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. And Gingrich said he would assassinate even more Iranian nuclear scientists, because it was deniable. No doubt, Gingrich would side with McCain's neo-con advisers, who want to encircle the Russians with NATO and roll-up Russia as they do a new world makeover. Would be great for that silent partner in all this, Saudi Arabia, the Bush family friends who hide behind the scenes as Israel takes the heat for rolling up the Saudi's enemy, Iran.

All Gingrich's domestic policies (which sound good) will go nowhere and be like Obama's hope and change marketing lie, because the neo-con agenda of taking down the rest of the world will consume most resources, keep the money supply/central bank inflating, and take priority over everything else.

If all you need to go to war in Iran are 'existential fears,' as Gingrich advocates, then you are essentially subscribing to an anything goes recklessness in which facts, truth, and reality are irrelevant and you do whatever damn well you please. Politically, probably smart-positioning in case Obama gambles that nuking Iran is the best road to the White House.

Gingrich is a bought man, who as some are saying, will make the grand deal with Nancy Pelosi and sellout everything. I like the guy, but another chest-thumping power abuser waging worldwide wars from the shelter of the White House would make me hold my nose in the voting booth. Ron Paul is the only one in GOP or Dem side that might nudge this country back towards sanity by providing true leadership rather than serving the neo-con cause blindly like Gingrich et al.

I think today's Americans will be treated historically like the Nazi era Germans in their blind allegiance and blood lust: e.g. gloating over the mutilated bodies of leaders (e.g. Libya), cheering on the execution of friends (Mubarak of Egypt); going to war on flimsy false pretenses (non-existent weapons in Iraq); giving up freedom (ala Kafka's The Trial), etc.

Second Section

14) 'Would humans and families go extinct without the "State"? Yes, it is very likely that they would.'

CORRECT: It is better to say "Government", then to use the term "State". Without "Government" individual rights would be difficult to protect and the ability to secure families and other groups in their economic behavior would be threatened. There cannot be liberty without government, but government is also the greatest threat to liberty. The balance is found in a Republic under the Rule of Law.

15) Congress established Social Security out of benevolence, in order to make up for the inability to save for retirement due to gold confiscation.

WRONG: Congress was "forced" to pass Social Security Legislation, because the nationalization of gold confiscated gold holdings from American savers in 1933. Without Gold, an individual cannot "save" to sustain himself in old age.

16) In 2012 Republican election, believes Newt Gingrich would be better than Ron Paul in re-establishing Constitutional limits on the Federal state.

CORRECT: Gingrich has a proven political record. He went up against the FED central banking system by passing balanced budgets He pushed through welfare reform against stiff opposition. Best of all, he brought about the power change in the U.S. House. He made no friends by doing this either with the Democrats, nor with the Republican Party Establishment. It didn't take those two long to oust Gingrich as the Speaker of the House.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is a politician who talks a lot about restraining the federal government, but in his decades as a member of the U.S. House he has shown an inability to built coalitions or to cut the power of the federal government in any way. As an educator and "Pied Piper" for the "cause", Ron Paul is commendable. As a politician, he is unremarkable.

17) 'John Bolton would make an excellent Secretary of State.'

CORRECT: I see John Bolton as a logical, knowledgable individual who can express himself well on a wide range of foreign affairs. He would make an excellent Secretary of State under a President Gingrich.

18) "The greatest nightmare for the central bank crowd is a "President Newt Gingrich"."

CORRECT: See Item 16)

19) "The Republican establishment... is hell bent to prevent Newt Gingrich from changing the monetary system to return to "free market" capitalism."

CORRECT: The Democrats and the Republican Party Establishment see a "President Gingrich" as someone who would threaten their FED central banking system by promoting the establishment of a parallel redeemable currency. This would be to the of benefit of the average American, but it would be to the detriment of the monetary elite.

"Slop not fit for a pig, I would say."

This particular comment potrais you to have the brain of a mosquito, which I suspected long ago. You just proved it again.

Hey, BM... ..I like to squish bugs... .. (Bionic Mosquito, what a joke... ..)

First Section

Well, what do you know? Something concrete... . Congratulations !!!

1) No private property in land; all land is state / government owned.

CORRECT: there is NO private property in Land. It does not exist. (Read John Locke for the argument) People have exclusive use of Land in perpetuity through "fee simple" titles issued by Country Registrars.

WRONG: No state, no government owns Land. Land cannot be owned, it can only be used. States have allodial title over land, which simply gives them juridiction over landed areas where no other sovereign can impose any kind of tax. Allodial title also obligates the State to administer equal access to Land for residents in their jurisdictions. They use the counties as their subdivisions to meet the obligation.

2) Lincoln's vision of keeping the union together under all circumstances must be maintained, ignoring the cost this exacted the first time.

CORRECT: Lincoln's decision to fight the Civil War amounted to instituting the concept of the "Insolubility of the United States". In other words, once a state joins the Union, it is stuck. Lincoln changed "These United States" to "The United States".

WRONG: I think the cost in lives the Civil War extracted was severe. The question is whether this great sacrifice in lives to fight the Civil War did not actually prevent a much greater loss of lives down the road. I will argue that it did.

3) The state is necessary for markets to function.

WRONG: There are only two "wealth distribution systems". One is the "free market" which distributes wealth by totally voluntary, uncoerced, private agreements. The other is "Socialism" which distributes wealth to one degree or another by government edict. I am against "Socialism", and I am full square for the "Free Market". The State is not necessary for markets to function.

4) Banking cannot properly function without state charter.

Wrong: Banks can function without state charter. However, States have an obligation to adhere to the U.S. Constitution. To validate a paper currency to be used as "legal tender" under the U.S. Constitution, the State issues bank charters requiring full redemption at any time of the paper currency issued by a chartered bank.

The State charter sets forth the bank's obligation in creating redeemable paper currency and the State's authority to check that the bank meets the obligation. Through State bank charters, the States insure adherence to Section 10, Article I of the Constitution.

5) The original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a good and necessary act, done openly and with good intent.

CORRECT: While the big NY banks and their ally, Majority Leader Alrich (R) in the U.S. Senate did everything to award the contemplated franchise of a national currency to the NY banks, the majority of the U.S. Senators insisted on a franchise issued to each of twelve independent, regional reserve banks to create redeemable currency under the "Real Bills Doctrine". (See FRA of 1913, paragraph (a) and (c), Section 14.) Only after Senator Aldrich saw that he would be unable to pass the FRA in favor of the NY banks did he start to support the ratification of the 16th Amendment. It was the Income Tax which allowed the NY FRB to violate the 1913 FRA starting in the 1920s and eventually destroy the original FED system. The FRA of 1913 sought to effect control over the use of "idle currency" for speculative purposes.

6) Legal form triumphs economic reality; for example, credit (real bills) is not credit if the legislature says it isn't.

WRONG: Real Bills have nothing to do with legislation. Real Bills evolved over hundred of years and are governed by a separate section of Common Law known as the Law of Bills and Notes. Real Bills are not credit. Real Bills are an asset which are immediately negotiable and can be discounted. The deciding party in a Real Bill is the signer, not the drawer. Credit instruments, or loans are not discounted. These instruments earn interest. Lenders want interest, not discounts. Real Bills are discounted, loans are not.

7) Repeal of the 17th amendment is a key to restoring the republic to the original intent of the founders', ignoring the events of 1861 - 1865

CORRECT: The events (Civil War) of 1861 - 1865 have absolutely nothing to do with the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment changed the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislators to a popular election by state voters. This was something which the founders were utterly opposed to judging from their four week long debate of the very subject during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the states surrendered their power in the U.S. Congress. The present concentration of power in the federal government is the direct result of the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

8) The states lost their voice with the passage of the 17th amendment, again ignoring that the voice was lost in 1865.

CORRECT: The states resigned their voice in the U.S. Congress with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. The states did not lose their voice in the U.S. Congress in 1865. However, they did lose the freedom to seceed from the Union.

9) Capping property taxes in California through Proposition 13 was a bad idea

CORRECT: If land parcels are taxed on their actual value (Land value are County Assessor records) the use of those parcel must be put to their best and proper use. Capping this tax, or collecting a tax below value allows parcels to be used for speculative purposes. California is the only state which passed Proposition 13. It is the State which is in the greatest financial problems today. It is not widely reported, but California's real estate boom and bust has put the State into insolvency which is only staved off through federal funds, meaning the 49 other states pay for the survival of California.

10) Free markets = government legislation, government regulation, government charter, government audit, and government enforcement.

NONSENSE: See Item 3)

11) 'REAL BILLS ARE NOT BACKED BY GOLD. REAL BILLS ARE GOLD, almost.'

CORRECT: Real Bills are backed by the reputation of the signer and the ready demand for his goods by his customers. Banks create redeemable paper currency against Real Bills which they acquire by discounting them to the producer/seller. The State bank charters require that paper currency be readily redeemable into gold. Banks are required to hold certain amounts of gold as capital. If redemption requirements exceed gold on hand, a bank can always rediscount Real Bills for gold.

12) If the courts decide something is Constitutional, it is Constitutional.

WRONG: Courts, including the Supreme Court, set precedence with their decisions. None of the court decisions have the power of a constitutional amendment. As a matter of fact, I propose a constitutional amendment to vacate all Supreme Court decision since 1937.

13) 'The "State" came into existence to preserve the family.'

The "State" is a natural phenomenon which emerges form a group of people congregated in a certain area. "Government" is the legal body which enforces rules established by the group of people in a certain area to allow them to survive and to propagate. An "Administration" are the people who operate the government.

I am stressed, Mr. Bischoff, but not because of your remarks. I am "carrying the weight of the world" right now. I just cannot give this the concentration it deserves. I should not have disputed without being willing to give and take. I will debate this better in the future. My apologies. You gave an excellent reply, even if in my mind it is hogwash. :-) Peace to you.