Did you notice the Bank of England’s private U.S. Federal Reserve subsidiary, Delaware incorporated, producer of our near-worthless unbacked paper dollars, was “not” nationalized with the other troubled banks?
The purpose of the central banks is to transfer wealth such as real property, factories, and other assets to the Fed’s owners with worthless and unlimited and unbacked (gold, silver) paper. It establishes public policy from The Communist Manifesto — here, the “abolition of private property.” It has no reserves except the paper it prints at will with zeros added on and transferred to its computer coffers.
The Congress should abolish the Fed’s charter, resume its constitutional duty, and direct the proper limited amount of nondebt currency, gold and silver backed, to control any overexpansion, providing the stability it once knew.
The present unbacked currency proliferation accounts for our international meddling, wars, and homegrown unconstitutional bureaucracy expansion.
Smart investors saw the dollar’s demise and invested heavily in gold and silver, creating shortages beginning last March for the first time.
Thomas Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
The central bankers supported the environmental and more recent eminent domain concepts to bring about the same result.
Sunshine and Mediocrity
Ho hum. I had hoped for some rational constructive criticism to my previous letter, my mild criticism of this city (Letters, October 2). However, three responses were angry, irrational, condescending, sarcastic, and full of personal invective. The one letter in my defense was from a lady who had lived in the Bay Area, naturally. The scale of discourse there tends towards the rational and the intelligence level much higher. I thank this lady for her insight and gentility. As for the recent letter from Mr. P.B., you need to know that sarcasm is the last refuge of the witless. I also do not understand why you think I want to move to L.A. I was thinking more of a great city 500 miles or so north, the real “finest city.”
The three nasty letters typify for me the provincialism of this place. Are you gentlemen incapable of rebutting my view of San Diego in a logical, constructive fashion instead of merely tearing it down with personal invective? How boring! I was hoping to get a good conversation going, maybe to learn something from a positive dialogue. Instead I get the tired old “love it or leave it” tirade, trite and facile.
I’m from San Diego, but I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to live in other places. However, I remember when this was a small, pleasant town. Then it became a large, unpleasant town without bothering to become a city. That is all I am saying. Can you refute this without resorting to personal invective?
Your letters have further convinced me that we all live in an intellectual wasteland. Significantly, the most intelligent letter came from an ex–San Franciscan. She won’t be staying here long. This lady realizes that sunshine and mediocrity are not enough to make a great city. You will too, one of these days.
Most weeks I go though the Reader. I find some good articles and some not so good, okay. I’ve been reading the “Remote Control King” thinking it was humor. In several months now it has not raised as much as a smile. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just a filler. Clip art would be cheaper and more entertaining.