Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Wiping out America's Debt

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
"When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler."

Source: Wikipedia

Since the despotic regime in DC has lied the USA into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were not needed, We the People only need to get rid of the DC tyrants, then announce to the international bankers financing those wars that we no longer are responsible for the debt incurred by the deposed thugs.

Adios Federal Reserve. Goodbye Goldman Sachs.

Let the international banking cartel chew on that!

It's time to put this joker on a diet



Anonymous said...

Ayee, art from Der Giftpilz,
the Poisonous Mushroom!
"What cares he for scorn and contempt
Money was and is his God!
Thru money he hopes to lord it over
And achieve mastery o'er the world!"

Frank said...

We do not need Sack.

After the National Security Act and implementation of same, Anerican citizens were denied some 40% of information needed to make responsible decisions on national finances.

The debtor must have the means of knowing HOW MUCH he is in debt, WHY the debt was contracted, IF the debt was necessary, WHAT other courses of action were open when the debt was contracted... etc.

And most important of all: Was this debt contracted voluntarily and not under duress?

All this is off the table and has been since 1947. Americans do not have a "national debt". The regime has a debt and they can go to hell with it.

Sarah said...

I used ”Credit Solution” to settle my debt and avoid bankruptcy. They managed to reduce my debt up to 58% and improve my credit score. It's legitimate . I came across this company on NBC News Special Edition. Check it out here:

Anonymous said...

seems most people understand that the 'regime' in-effect, more or less feels it can 'enslave' us all with the 80k bucks of 'debt' it wants to chain around all of our necks.

I won't live long enough to pay it. Who is going to pay my debt share when I croak??

by then, it'll be more than 250k bucks per person's worth of illegitimate warmongering debt.

me repay them? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

no human glue factories yet....unless that's what those son's of bitch's are making in those KBR / REX-84 camps they've been hurriedly hiring guards for now..

Tom Dennen said...

"Our money is an illusion. Except for coins, which compose only one ten-thousandth of the money supply, all of our money today consists of debt to private banks. Banks always take back more money in principal and interest than they put into the money supply as principal, making the system basically a pyramid scheme. After 300 years, this scheme has spread around the world and has now reached its mathematical limits. The whole world has been captured in the debt trap of a private international banking monopoly." Economist Ellen Brown.

The simple answer is Sovereign money which is the polar opposite of odious debt.

Schwartzegger's introduction of IOUs is Sovereign money, as long as the state of California accepts its own IOUs as payment for state services.

You may have noticed that in the first weeks of August this year, the above-mentioned banksters announced that they are going to stop accepting the IOUs.

Why? There's no debt and no interest for them - no profit in sovereign money.

Normally, whoever starts using sovereign money is taken out.

Arnie, don't get into any small aircraft.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive