moo-4

READERS’ FORUM

Comments under 300 words, please. We cannot engage in correspondence but do appreciate your contribution. We do not publish insults or attacks against other readers. Points should stand on their own merits. You are welcome to express your religious views but not to criticize the views of others. Our mission is to unify our readers, not divide them. Send comments here.

_____________________________

NEED-TO-KNOW IS A HIT
2015 Sept 4 from John Black
Hi Edward, Thank you for the excellent weekly newsletter, it is greatly appreciated and forwarded on to many. Thanks for having the beautiful pictures in it, and the humor section is also a great stress reliever.

IS THE FED ILLEGAL?
2015 Sep 2 from Patrea Patrick
What do you see as illegal about the Fed? Are there (or were there) constitutional rights that were suppose to protect the country from such a system? Thank you for your help in these matters, as question arise, and to call upon you is a great gift.

REPLY FROM GEG:
Hello Patrea.
The Fed is legal because it was created by a law (The Federal Reserve Act). However, it is unconstitutional because it does what is prohibited in the Constitution (issue bills of credit as money). Another way of looking at its unconstitutionality is that Congress gave the Fed power to issue something other than bullion coins as money, yet Congress, itself, never had that power to delegate.

Now, the plot thickens: The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land. If the word ‘illegal’ is defined as something that violates a law, and if the Constitution is the highest law, then the Fed is illegal at the highest level even though it was created by a law. Ironically, that makes it an illegal law!

Unfortunately, the Constitution does not enforce itself. None of this makes any difference if Congress and the President and the judges and the news media and the teachers and the preachers and the voters do nothing about it.

WHO IS RIGHT?
2015 Sept 2 from Jeff Henderson
I’ve been trying to explain to my Broker at Merrill Lynch – what I’ve heard about the “banking laws” having been changed. I explained that, if Bank of America goes down – my deposits are the property of the bank. In other words, I am a creditor, and the money is an “unsecured loan” and would be lost (I would be in line behind others, i.e. derivative debts of the bank, etc.). He continues to reference the FDIC, saying my money is “insured” against loss… and that my money is on different (250K) “buckets” so that it is ALL within the FDIC insurance limits.

I’ve read a lot about this – but cannot really get to the BOTTOM of the truth. If Bank of America goes down, will my money, in fact, be used, taken, etc. by the bank to pay it’s debts? Am I still ensured by the FDIC? What is the truth about this? Does it depend on the TYPE of money? (pension vs. normal deposits)?

REPLY FROM GEG:
Hello Jeff. I am afraid that I do not know the answer, either. This matter is in flux. I do know that your understanding is a correct summary of where the banks are headed. That is exactly what they intend to implement. The process is called a ‘bail-in’. However, there probably are legal restraints that yet need to be removed by their friends in Washington, but that could happen overnight when the next economic tsunami hits. In other words, you and your broker both are right. He is right as of now. You will be right when it matters.

A VOTE FOR THE OLD NAME
2015 Aug 30 from Serg Remy
I preferred Unfiltered News! It just sounds better.