DEBT-CANCELLATION PROGRAMS
An analysis by G. Edward Griffin
Copyright © 2003 - 2008
Revised 2008 December 4

There are numerous firms offering services to assist borrowers in forcing banks and credit-card companies to cancel their debt contracts. The theory is that these loans are fraudulent because borrowers are led to believe they are receiving money derived from the bank’s assets when, in fact, it is created from a mere bookkeeping entry and is derived entirely from the borrowers’ own credit or collateral assets. Since these loans are made under false pretenses, they are unlawful and cannot be enforced.

I agree with this theory, but I cannot recommend these debt-cancellation programs without important qualifications. One of them is that it remains to be seen how successful challengers will be in the long run. At present, there are numerous celebrated cases where individuals have succeeded in forcing lending institutions to back down. This, however, does not necessarily mean that everyone in the future will be equally successful. As they say in the investment field: "Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance." It is my opinion that, as more challengers pursue this course, eventually the banks will have to counter-attack. When they do, I am not confident that the courts can be depended on to support the common man. In recent times, truth and justice are often sacrificed in our judicial system when confronted by entrenched political and economic power. When dealing with such fundamental issues as this, I fear that many judges will cry Hail Caesar rather than risk being thrown to the lions themselves. Logic, Common Law, and the Constitution will not even be considered. If people understand the reality of this risk and are psychologically prepared to take on the banks and the government within a potentially corrupt judicial system, only then should they follow this course.

Having said that, there is no question that there are those who have been successful in having their debts dismissed and, naturally, they are very happy about it. For example, the day after I first advised caution on this issue in the October 2, 2003 issue of our Announcements, I received the following email:

A few days later, I received another email from one of our subscribers with a different view. He said:

John Gliha, the author of the book entitled Winning The Collection Game, contacted me shortly after this and said that the reason there are so many failures is that most of those offering debt-elimination services are merely selling plagiarized versions of his strategy and they really didn’t understand it. He said:

Shortly after receiving that note of confidence in the procedure, I received the following email:

On November 10, 2003, I received the following email. The subject line was: I want this DEBT To GO AWAY.

Not everyone has been as appreciative of my cautious stance on this issue. Shortly after receiving these messages, another email arrived that said: "I am beginning to believe that you are a coward Mr. Griffin." The subject line said simply: "Coward." The message was unsigned, and the email address could not be lined up with any of our customers or subscribers, so it probably came from someone who is a stranger to our operation. I replied: "Please advise why you are beginning to think I am a coward. Is it because I expect defenders of freedom to consider both sides of an issue and to have ethics? Speaking of cowardice, what do you think of people who call someone a coward but are afraid to identify themselves? Do you have a name?" As of this date, I have not received a reply.

The banks and their partners in government have not been aggressive so far in challenging debt-cancellation programs, apparently on the theory that it is better to charge off a few loans here and there than to take the matter to court and risk either publicity or an unfavorable judgment that could become a precedent. However, the dragon is beginning to stir. The following bulletin from the Treasury Department will illustrate their current stance. The original document can be accessed at http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/alert//2003-12.txt.

It is easy to conclude that borrowers are merely innocent victims of the system. Therefore, it is acceptable for them to get a loan for a large-screen TV, for example, place no money into a down payment, challenge the loan, obtain a cancellation of the debt, and end up possessing the TV. However, it takes but a moment’s reflection to see that this also constitutes fraud. It is fraud because it allows something for nothing. When one person gets something for nothing, someone else must pay for it. Who pays for the TV that is given to the borrower with the cancelled debt? The answer is that the stockholders of the bank do.

Loans are considered as assets of the bank, much like receivables are to other businesses. When a loan is cancelled, it is converted into a "bad debt" expense, and that causes the net assets or equity of the bank to decrease by the same amount. In other words, the borrower’s good fortune at having the loan cancelled is offset by the bad fortune of those who invested in the bank.

Some people may say: "So what? Who cares about those #@!*&!s anyway?" But that raises an ethical question. Is it morally acceptable for us to participate in this process because we think banks practice fraud? Is it all right to legally plunder and get something for nothing so long as it is taken from those who invest in banks?

One lady wrote to me recently saying that, since the money was created out of nothing, she could not believe that bank stockholders would lose anything as a result of a cancelled debt. How could the loss of "nothing" be a problem? The answer is that, in the loan process, "nothing" becomes "something." The newly created money actually takes on value because it is backed by something of value. True, it is not gold or silver, but it is value, nevertheless. Here is how it works.

When loans are made, the money springs into being out of the bank’s inkwells and computer chips. However, it is backed by the borrower’s promise to repay and, if the amount is large, also by tangible assets that are pledged as collateral. That means it is backed by a commitment of human labor and tangible assets. Therefore, the newly created money does represent real value.

When the principal of a loan is repaid, it ceases to exist as money in circulation. The numbers disappear back into the inkwells and computer chips from which they came. The underlying tangible assets are released from collateral, allowing them to exist at full value in themselves without any monetary claims against them. When money is created for a loan, it increases the nation’s money supply and has a temporary inflationary effect. Repayment of principal reduces the nation’s money supply and cancels the inflationary effect. Without this contraction, the cost of the TV set would be passed on to the entire population in the form of perpetual inflation. Therefore, repayment of principal is necessary. It has a stabilizing effect on the economy.

Banks are entitled to a reasonable fee for their services. One of those services is to make bank loans. There are two theoretical ways in which banks can make loans. One is to act as a loan broker. In this mode, banks pay a small interest rate to depositors and then loan that same money to borrowers at a higher rate. No new money comes into existence in this mode. This is not how banks operate in the real world of today. The method commonly used today is more complex. Instead of loans being based on deposits of money that already exists, they are based on a borrower’s credit worthiness and future earning power. Through procedures that are institutionalized by the Federal Reserve System, they convert these non-monetary entities into legal money, and that is given to the borrower for immediate use. This is what really happens when a bank makes a loan. It merely converts non-monetary values, including hard assets pledged as collateral, into money.

Basically, the bank is saying: "Mr. Smith has a good credit record and earning potential, so we are willing to use the power given to us by the Federal Reserve System to create legal money that he can use for his personal benefit, provided he promises to repay, plus interest, and provided he also pledges tangible assets in case he does not repay. This will increase the nation’s money supply, but that is only a temporary effect. In due course, he will repay the money, and that will reduce the nation’s money supply back to its original size. Furthermore, we are willing to guarantee that he will repay the principal. If he does not, then we will repay it for him using money that existed prior to the loan in the form of equity in our bank stock. For this service, we charge a fee. We call it interest, because that is a word that people accept without further explanation. However, it is really a fee for the service of monetizing debt. In other words, we convert debt into money. That is the service Mr. Smith seeks, and that is the service we provide. For simplicity, however, we call it a loan and say we are charging interest."

When the true nature of a bank loan is understood, it is clear that the bank is entitled to a reasonable fee for this service. The problem arises over the word reasonable. If previously existing money were being loaned out - money that people had to work for, pay taxes on, and save - then today’s bank rates would sound reasonable. But no one worked for this money; no one paid taxes on it; and no one saved it. It was created on the spot. Furthermore, considering that larger loans are usually collateralized with tangible assets, there is minimal risk of loss. The service provided by banks is not a loan in the traditional sense, it is just a bookkeeping transaction. Under these circumstances, we might think that a flat 3% to 5% would be a reasonable fee, depending on the creditworthiness of the client and the value of the collateral. Today’s bank loans, however, are usually far in excess of that, especially considering that they are not one-time flat fees but per annum fees. When the annual rate is multiplied by the number of years that most loans remain on the books, the real fee is shockingly high.

We must acknowledge that the equity of the bank’s stockholders is at risk in these loans because, if borrowers do not repay, the bank must cover the loss of capital out of its equity. That is the reason large loans are usually backed by collateral. The bank has recourse to the hardware or real estate that was pledged as tangible backing to the money created for the loan. Although we may not like the idea that banks create money out of nothing and then can foreclose on tangible property if the loan is not repaid, this really is not as absurd as it may seem. By doing so, they are converting worthless paper money into something of real value because of the earning power and tangible property that backs it up. Remember: the banks do not create the money for themselves, but for the borrower, and it is the borrower’s credit and assets that make that money really worth something.

This brings us back to the hypothetical loan for a large-screen TV. If the debt is cancelled and the TV remains with the borrower, the entire amount of the remaining loan must be removed from the bank’s ledger, including the outstanding principal. This represents a real loss to the stockholders; a loss that now is a free TV in someone’s living room. So the question is: does one injustice justify another? Is monetary fraud evil when committed by the banks but virtuous when we do it?

What is the proper course of action? Should we play it safe by not challenging the system and stay out of court? Should we agree to repay the principal only and not the interest? Should we take as much as we can and let the lawyers and judges work it out? It is not my role to tell anyone how to resolve this dilemma. My purpose simply is to bring these deeper issues to the surface so that each person can make an informed decision on the basis of his personal code of ethics.

In the meantime, there is an urgent need to do a lot more in this world than getting rid of debt. As important as that is, it will not solve the problem of our rapidly dwindling personal freedoms. Being out of debt will be small consolation in the concentration camp. That is why I created Freedom Force. If you are not yet familiar with it, I invite you to check it out at www.freedom-force.org. Once we have re-gained control of our country at all levels, we finally will be in a position to demand a value-based money system; and, when that happens, fraudulent loans and unearned interest will come to an end. That is our mission, and I hope you will want to become a part of it.

Ed Griffin

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES SINCE COMPLETION OF THIS ARTICLE

"I think you are doing folks a great service by steering them away from the credit card debt elimination process. I sold a credit card debt elimination program through a company called ***********. I have since quit. It is no problem getting the credit card companies to write the debt off and then to stop the debt collectors. The problem comes when some lawyer buys the debt and takes you to court. The judges side with the lawyer and the poor person has to pay. There are easier ways to make a living."
    Gordon Brown, Delmar, Delaware, December 10, 2003.

"I have been struggling with this concept for about 2 yrs now and finally I’ve received some clarity to this confusing theory with your email. Thank you for shedding some "white light" on it. My decision seems to be so much easier now."
    Walter Pummer, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, December 11, 2003.

"When a lead marketer for debt cancellation told me it was a way to cut the evil banking tree down at the roots, I wanted to do my part and said, "I’m in!" Unfortunately, I surrendered my moral concerns and ventured forward, armed with rationalizations of the bank’s fraud and nondisclosures...

"I am thankful that I am one of the fortunate ones who made it through without problems! Knock on wood! However, I personally know of other people who have not. Example: A bank is going after a sweet, older, widowed woman to take away her home. She has offered to pay the debt! But the bank is refusing her offer. They are going after everything she has.

"Even though I had a debt termination ad in my local phone book, I cannot risk bringing harm to anyone! … I have never been able to "wash my brain" (as another marketer said he did) from traditional ways of thinking. Regardless of what evils the banks commit, I shook hands on the credit agreement and therefore my honor was given. Two wrongs do not make a right…. Thank you for pointing out who does get hurt with debt eliminations, and posing the bottom-line question: Is monetary fraud evil when committed by the banks but virtuous when we do it?

"I greatly appreciate your being ’here’ for all of us with your knowledge, research and focus. You have helped me finally put an end to my spending time on debt cancellation. There are more noble and urgent causes - as you well put it!"
    Elizabeth Randolph, PhD, Loveland, Colorado, December 11, 2002.

"Dear Mr. Griffin, I am seriously concerned over your continued support of the usefulness of the banking system and it’s benefits. You wrote the book on the corruption produced by the ease of the deception of banking. You wrote the book on the corruption of the people involved in our banking system.... Yet you continue to write that these practices could benefit the nation to stabalize the economy, if they were just changed in this more honest manner or that one. Why? The ONLY thing that would benefit the economy is to close the federal reserve and prosecute the conspirators to restore any gold or real profit to the people from whom it has been stolen. This must be done to restore any real capitalism. Captialism is based on a man’s ability to compete in the open market because wealth represents the person’s ability to produce something of value. To be able to create the means of exchange out of thin air denies the ability of real exchange and competition. It is not a service, but a fraudulent manipulation of a man’s ability to produce. It ruins the free market. If anyone can create any money without doing the work to produce the wealth then the balance of supply and demand is altered and disturbed. These banking proceedures cannot be good in any way. Besides, those who run the fraudulent banks are criminals. They have a criminal mind set. Their purpose is to enslave the world’s population. They need to be stopped and prosecuted for their crimes. What good is Freedom Force without this realization?"
    Sincerely, Susan *******, January 12, 2004.

This was my reply:

Hello Susan *******. I sincerely appreciate that you have taken time to express your concern over my position regarding the usefulness of banks. You have a conception that I am an admirer and defender of our current banking system, but nothing could be further from the truth. My defense of banking is in terms of what it should be, not what it is today. There is a parallel between my attitude toward banking and government. Because I have been critical of policies of government officials, defenders of those policies have claimed that I am anti-government. That is not true. I am not anti-government, I am anti-corrupt government, and my mission is to remove the corruption. That makes me a defender of government, not its attacker; and those who ignore the corruption are the ones who are truly ant-government, or at least anti-just government.

The same is true of banking. If you will review my previous statements on this issue, you will see that I remain a harsh critic of many of today’s banking policies, but that does not make me “anti-bank.” It is my conclusion after considerable study on this issue that banks can serve a highly beneficial purpose in facilitating the exchange of value that is essential to all economic transactions. Without banks or some similar institution with a different name, we would be limited to using barter (including precious-metal coins) in all our economic transaction; and that, in my opinion, would be a needless handicap.

As I have stated before, my argument with the current system has nothing to do with how banks convert debt into money backed by borrower assets, but with the fact that the money they create is government money ultimately guaranteed by taxes. My objection is that banks now operate as a cartel with government as their partner. The cartel has been given an unconstitutional power to create the nation’s money supply which citizens are forced to accept through legal tender laws. Because of this alliance, banks are exempt from honoring their depositor contracts and have a tap into the public treasury whenever they face bankruptcy due to reckless loans that cannot be repaid.

In you message, you stated: "To be able to create the means of exchange out of thin air denies the ability of real exchange and competition." This would be correct if the means of exchange (money) is not backed by something of value, and you apparently are assuming that the money created by the banks is in that category. However, as I stated in previous essays, when banks issue collateralized loans, the money they create is backed by the assets held as recourse for the loan. Therefore, the money is not worthless at all –- any more than it would be if it were backed by gold coins. Instead of denying the ability of real exchange and competition, as you suggest, it is actually the reverse. It expands the ability of real exchange and competition. That is precisely the beneficial service that banks perform for the economy. Without that, all loans would have to be based on precious metals stored in vaults, and the availability of credit would be greatly restricted. So, please understand that recognizing the good services that banks perform does not mean that one is a defender of the present system.

Toward the end of your message, you stated: "The only thing that would benefit the economy is to close the federal reserve and prosecute the conspirators…. Those who run the fraudulent banks are criminals. They have a criminal mindset. Their purpose is to enslave the world’s population. They need to be stopped and prosecuted for their crimes. What good is Freedom Force without this realization?" This is the part of your message that is the most challenging, because it implies that my position suffers from a lack of principle and resolve. So please bear with me while I try to cover this point as objectively as I can.

I agree that the Federal Reserve as it now functions should be abolished, and that was the primary conclusion of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. So I don’t think I need to expand on that. The next part, however, gets to the crux of the matter. You say we should prosecute the conspirators for their crimes. My question to you is how? It is not sufficient to be indignant or angry or to call for prosecution and abolition or reform or justice or any of the other actions one constantly hears proposed unless there is a realistic way to do those things. Do you think that merely making these demands is going to change anything? Who do we petition? Who will listen to us? Who agrees with us who also has the power to bring about any of these actions?

My dear Susan, the ones who can do these things are the government and the courts –- with the backing of the media –- and they are now firmly in the grip of the very people we want to prosecute. Do you see the futility of this stance? We can complain all we want, we can write books, hold seminars and national conventions, circulate petitions, express our views in letters to the editor and on radio talk shows, we can circulate indignant emails all day long for the rest of our lives but, unless the power centers of society –- those groups and institutions that can make these things happen –- until they are liberated from the control of collectivists and their financier masters, nothing is going to change.

That is why Freedom Force was created. We must not be complainers. We must be activists. It is not enough to just announce what should be done. We must then go forth and do it. When you are ready to start actually doing something about the banking problem –- and all the other problems we now face –- when you are ready to become involved in community and organizational work to participate in re-capturing the power centers of society, I will be happy to welcome you as a member of Freedom Force.

G. Edward Griffin

In July of 2004, I was introduced to the web site of a company offering debt-cancellation services that addressed the "morality" issue with the following arguments:

This is a forceful restatement of the concept that, because banks are acting fraudulently and immorally, it is OK for creditors to receive something for nothing and also act fraudulently and immorally. Note that the focus here is on the illegality of the banks' actions. In truth, even though these loans appear to be illegal (under present law) there is nothing immoral about them except the magnitude of the fees they collect. If one wants to assume that anything that is illegal is also immoral (a dangerous assumption), then this argument may have additional weight, but it is still burdened by the fact that one immoral act does not justify a second one.

The fact that banks carry insurance to cover their losses does not change the ethical question at all. It merely means that they will pay for the losses indirectly in the form of insurance premiums rather than directly in the form of write-offs from their balance sheet. If there is an unexpected surge of claims, the losses then will be paid by stockholders of the insurance company. If the claims continue at a higher-than-normal rate, the insurance premiums will be raised to cover them, and the losses then will flow back to the stockholders of the bank. There is no free lunch. Someone must pay for that free TV set.

The big issue here is, not one of legality, but one of morality. I cannot advise anyone on what course to take. All I can do is help to clarify the underlying concepts. Each of us must respond in context of our own personal code of ethics.

THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
     On December 7, 1968, there was a decision handed down by a jury in a Justice of the Peace court in Credit River, Minnesota, in which Jerome Daly, holder of a mortgage from the Bank of Montgomery, was released from any obligation to repay the money advanced to him by the bank for the purchase of his property. The jury (and the judge) agreed with Daly's attorney that FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) are not based on gold or silver as required by the Constitution and, therefore, are not Moneys of Account of the United States, which is what the mortgage specified for payment. Justice Martin Mahoney declared that FRNs really were FRAUDs (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices). Strong words, indeed, from a judge. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly is cited by advocates of debt cancellation programs as a landmark decision and a precedent for future cases.

Let us analyze. The foundation for the verdict in this case had little to do with the nature of Federal Reserve Notes. It was the testimony of the bank president who freely admitted that banks routinely create money out of nothing. The jury had never heard of this before and did not understand that, although the money was created out of thin air, it was immediately backed by the value of the mortgaged property and instantly became something of value. The attorney for the bank never explained that fact to the jury, probably because he didn't understand it himself. With only a partial understanding of money mechanics, the jury concluded that creating money out of thin air was a fraud.

Here is a first-hand account of that moment in the courtroom, as told by Associate Justice William Drexler who assisted Justice Mahoney at the trial:

So what can we conclude from this case? Let's start with the fact that Judge Martin Mahoney was a Justice of the Peace. That does not disqualify him from having a valid judicial opinion, but it means that this decision, although electrifying because of its strong language, is not highly ranked as a model case. Very few courts would feel bound by it.

More important is the fact that banks perform a legitimate service when they convert the property or credit of a customer into money. However, by calling the customer a borrower (which he isn’t) and calling their fee interest (which it isn’t) they hoodwink the public into thinking that these transactions are loans (which they aren’t). That is how they get away with charging such exorbitant fees. So, I am not an admirer of bank ethics, but I recognize that there is more to the story than that. In the Credit River case, the bank’s attorney failed to present the rest of it. If I had been called to the witness stand, I would have pointed out that the money for the purchase of Daly’s cabin was, indeed, created out of thin air but, once it was given to Daly, it was backed by his house as a tangible asset, thus, giving the money real value. I also would have explained that cancellation of Daly’s mortgage would have two consequences: (1) he would receive something for nothing (a clear title to a dwelling he could not have purchased without the bank’s service); and (2) the stockholders of the bank would have to absorb a financial loss equal to Daly’s gain. In other words, the stockholders would be forced to pay for Daly’s cabin, which is how it turned out after all. If the bank’s attorney had presented these facts, it is possible the jury would have returned a different verdict.

WHAT IF THE BANKS HAVE NO LOSSES?
     Just when I thought everything had been said that could be said on this topic, a member sent me a sales proposal for a cancellation program that differed from the others in that it claimed there would be no losses to the banks, and he asked for my opinion; so, once again, I had to go into study mode. After looking at the program at great length, this was my reply:

This organization has come up with a truly brilliant plan for debt-cancellation. It has the same characteristics of most of the others; but, instead of leaving the bank with a cancelled mortgage, which must be written off its books and passed on to its stockholders as a loss, this program gives the banks an option of exchanging the mortgage for a 30-year bond valued at twice the amount of the mortgage. These bonds, which they say are issued by a Swiss trust company and certified as legal tender by a well known US banking investment firm, do not pay anything to the bank and are not even intended to be redeemable, but they are of value to the banks nevertheless because, in that bizarre world known as the Federal Reserve System, they still can be classified as assets. Because of Fed guidelines, these then become the foundation upon which the banks can generate up to nine times their face value in the form of newly created money to be used for what they call loans – and those will generate income. So the banks do pretty well. They lose monthly income on one transaction but gain the ability to receive monthly income on eighteen others (because the bonds are twice the value of the mortgage). This is income they would not receive without the underlying bond; so, of course, they accept it. Very clever.

The marketing organization describes this as a win-win deal. The mortgage holder wins, because the mortgage is cancelled and the home is acquired at zero or very little cost. Not only that, clients are encouraged to immediately take out another mortgage and repeat the process with the goal of ending up with a large amount of cash in their pockets plus a free home. That's certainly a win if there ever was one. The bank also wins, because it can continue creating money out of nothing and collecting exhorbitant fees on it as though it were interest on loans. But, is this really a win-win situation? Is it really possible for the homeowner to get something for nothing and for the bank to do the same without someone paying for it? The obvious answer is no.

There are other parties to this transaction that no one seems to care about. They are you and I and the rest of the population. The mechanism by which this so-called win-win deal is achieved is the Mandrake Mechanism described in The Creature from Jekyll Island. It is the process by which money is created out of nothing for the benefit of the creators but at the expense of everyone else who looses purchasing power through inflation. In reality, this is the same win-lose operation it always has been with the exception that now there is a strong appeal to our greed. The promoters are telling us that those nasty bankers have been doing this all these years, but now it is our turn to get in on the scam, and to hell with everyone else who has to pay for it. Here is how it was explained in the promotional email sent in by our our member:

That says it all. Tempting, isn't it? But an appeal to ethics it is not.

IN THIS BATTLE AGAINST BANKS, SHOUDN'T WE SHOOT BACK?
The following letter was received on December 4, 2008:

THIS WAS MY REPLY:.

Hello David.
I can appreciate your struggle with the ethics of this issue. They can become very murky in places.

The claim that we are at war and, therefore, must “shoot back” is an appealing argument but does not apply here. The essence of this issue is that two parties enter into a contract where one party obtains a better deal than the other party realizes. For example, party A agrees to purchase a home from Party B for $300,000. Party B paid only $85,000 with no down payment only two weeks ago, but the buyer has no knowledge of that. The seller is not obligated to disclose that he has no money at risk. If the buyer is willing to meet the terms of the sale, he is not cheated in any way.

A year later, if the buyer loses his job and has trouble making payments on the debt and then discovers that the home cost the seller nothing, he may claim to be a victim, but he is not. His financial trouble does not justify a claim that he was cheated and, therefore, is not required to continue payments. It does not justify a claim that he is entitled to own the home with no further cost to him. It does not justify a claim that, if the seller paid nothing for the home, now it is his turn to pay nothing for the home. It does not justify a claim that he is in a battle and must shoot back at the enemy.

In my opinion, fractional reserve banking is unethical, but banks not explaining to their customers how fractional reserve banking works is not. If borrowers were given a book on how modern banking works, most would never read it. The few that did might express amazement, but would accept the loans anyway. Regardless of how money comes into existence, most borrowers would proceed without hesitation so long as they approve the terms of repayment. Few borrowers read the fine print of contracts.

The massive plunder of the American people caused by the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the financial industry (and other politically favored industries) does not change the ethics of our own actions. Just because the elitists who hold political and financial power are legally plundering innocent people through taxes and inflation does not justify us, in the name of “shooting back,” to legally plunder innocent people who have invested their savings in those same financial institutions. It might be argued that those investors deserve losses as punishment for investing in corrupt corporations. If so, then it can also be said that American taxpayers deserve losses as punishment for voting for corrupt politicians who legalized this plunder in the first place. Neither argument is valid.

I repeat: Two wrongs do not make a right.

Printed on 07 September 10 at 17:44

URL of this page:
http://www.freedom-force.org/printerfriendly.cfm?pffile=debtcancel_content.cfm

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
Contact us at info@freedomforceinternational.org