Direct Link to Latest News


"Repudiate This Lie of a Debt!"

June 18, 2010

debtliar.jpgAnd the liars that go with it!

(left, debt Liar, Ron Paul)

Until we recognize that much of the national debt doesn't need to be "repaid,"  we are "debt lemmings" -- complicit in our own enslavement.   Our government is capable of drawing on its own credit without the intervention of private bankers.

by Tony Blizzard

In 2004, I printed out a Ron Paul article titled "Debt, the Greatest Threat to Our Security" because it sounded pretty good and I knew the danger of our already insane debt. 

But that was before I began paying attention to Paul's words rather than his hype. Today I took a closer look at that article.  It explains a lot about Paul's true agenda.
Congress was once again upping its debt ceiling so it could keep on borrowing past the then top of $7.4 trillion, already a number no one can truly comprehend.  

Paul wrote:  "Government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money - they're repaid by you and future generations." 

Actually they're never paid at all.  ("Repaid" is a misnomer the bankers love.  They never paid anything.  The debtor is the only real payer.) 

Much of the money that constitutes "the national debt" was created out of nothing by the Central bankers. Where does Paul think the money came from? But he fails to point this out because of the implications (i.e. it doesn't need to be repaid.) 

In reality, only the interest is ever paid to the Federal Reserve private bankers. Paul never mentions this since private bankers are "the market" on steroids; his misbegotten religion.

Instead, he repeatedly mentions (at least eight separate times) the other portion of our debt owed to foreign governments and foreign individuals.  Even foreign "central banks" is mentioned once, but never a peep about our own federal reserve bank.  Paul, in his writings, loathes government, any government, and he knows damned well the Fed is private.  You can bet on it.

Paul further wrote:  "The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending." 

This seems reasonable as those bonds represent the wealth of the nation and its people.  However, somehow it is unfathomable to Paul, as well as economists in general - to be fair, to see the lunacy of the government creating bonds instead of bills. 


Paul must surely be aware of Tom Edison's simple statement on this but, just in case, here's part of it you can send him from the American school of fair play economics:

"If our Nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill.  The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good also.  The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent interest, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.

"It is absurd to say that our country can issue (X dollars) in bonds and not (same X dollars) in currency.   Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer and the other helps the people."

Apparently Paul prefers to fatten the usurer and then complain about the unpayable debt that causes.  Can he be that stupid?

Edison continues:

"It is the people who constitute the basis of government credit.  Why then cannot the people have benefit of their own gilt-edge credit by receiving non-interest-bearing currency instead of bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?  If the United States Government will adopt this policy of increasing the national wealth without contributing to the interest collector--for the whole national debt is made up on interest charges--then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise."

The rest of Paul's article just rants on and on about the evils of debt because those foreigners who hold it call the shots over us.  How it destroys sovereignty and, finally, how debt is slavery.  Slavery under those foreigners, of course, with never a mention of the real foreigners, the Federal Reserve.

He does mention that Asian nations, China in particular, can "wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy." 

So Paul DOES understand how manipulating the volume of circulating currency changes its value.  Of course, he prefers gold.  You'll never have any because there's not enough to go around, but the value will be stable, asserts Paul.  But he's wrong there too.  Gold is a commodity and its price fluctuates daily.  Worse, it's a controlled commodity; controlled by the same bankers who own almost every currency in the world.  Fat chance of using gold to fight them.

Paul, like the banker-owned "economists," cites gloom and doom figures without ever mentioning that all these figures can be instantly erased by simply calling these criminal private "bankers" (they bank NOTHING of value) what they are and CANCELING ALL THEIR ILL GOTTEN LOAN CREDIT FIGURES FOREVER.

There is absolutely NO REASON to keep the whole world in economic stagnation because these crooked "bankers" who gained all these bookkeeping figures by their criminal scam refuse to stop the scam.  To hell with them.  Throw them in prison or hang them, as they deserve.


They are TRUE CRIMINALS, the worst set in the world.  None of them ever loaned anything of value and the world's unpayable debts to them are a fiction of bookkeeping which the continuation of makes life miserable for everyone alive except these crooks and their prostitutes, such as good ol' boy, Ron Paul, congress and the executive in general, and the globalist corporations who make up Paul's "world market."

As the London Times (Rothschild country) published about Lincoln's greenbacks back in "our" uncivil war:

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost, It will pay off debts and be without debt. [Thus free of the outside debt slavery Paul is so mournful of. - Tony B.] 

It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.  [Thus no depression as we are now suffering. - Tony B.]  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world.  [Apparently, in London, governments are only "civilized" if Rothschild bankers own and control them - keeping the people broke and servile. - Tony B.] 
The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America.  That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."  [The only one left, even then, worth mentioning, of course, being the fake one of Britain, still the true owners of the U.S. - Tony B.]

There you see the easy, simple solution to every economic problem we have today as published by those who feared its honesty would destroy their dishonest scam. 

Step 1.  Repudiate this lie of a debt.

Step 2.  Quit selling interest bearing government bonds on the people's credit.

Step 3.  Print bills on that credit and spend or give them into circulation in the proper amount (Edison again) "to move trade enough to prevent stagnation but not enough to permit speculation."

Problem solved.  Happy days for all but the greedy criminals who now own us would be here again.  And would continue forever if this simple plan was put into effect and kept in effect. 

Is this the reason that people like Paul continually harp against "cranking up the printing presses?"  Are we, plain people, instead supposed to be ever in debt slavery to the "elitists" of the world such as Paul's Freemasons?

Tell Ron Paul, as well as his deluded disciples, to get real about money or shut up about it.

Related- Makow --Half of National Debt is Owed to Fed

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for ""Repudiate This Lie of a Debt!" "

Kevin said (June 20, 2010):

The subject article ( is about the worst piece of trash I have ever seen on your website. I am truly amazed that you allowed it to be posted. It has seriously lessened my respect for you and your judgment.

Your contributor, Tony Blizzard, needs to do at least some research on his topics before attempting to criticize and condemn. This kind of irresponsible, misinformed, opinionated, nonsense only serves to hamper and discredit efforts to raise awareness of the global agenda and the real criminals involved.

Anyone who has read even some of Paul's writings knows that Blizzard's contentions are just plain factually incorrect. For example: "Much of the money that constitutes "the national debt" was created out of nothing by the Central bankers. Where does Paul think the money came from?"

This is in fact a basic contention of Paul's. He has talked and written about it repeatedly and has gone so far as to accuse the Federal Reserve of counterfeiting. Has Blizzard ever read anything beyond this Paul article he is referencing? He has clearly done little to no research and needs to sheath his pen until he does.

Paul in fact introduced a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve: Has Tony Blizzard been living in a box?

The YouTube video linked to in his article ( is just as irresponsible, off-the-wall, and lacking substantiation and validity.

It becomes more and more difficult for people to separate the wheat from the chaff. This pitiful excuse for an article clearly falls into the latter category.


Tony replies:

Those who sit at the feet of Paul absolutely refuse to register what the words written in the rant mean, just as they let Paul's words mean to them what they want them to mean. Anyone who defends Paul while ignoring the plain words of Edison and a Rothschild controlled newspaper - one FOR honest bills and the other scared out of its pants by them (in total opposition it even explained exactly what they will accomplish, unwittingly backing up Edison's words) - people who refuse to see those things are just plain willfully ignorant and not worth the time.

Those people live on words because there are no deeds to live on. Paul gives them the words they want to hear. Do they really think Paul introduces bills in congress to get them passed? What a dream world they live in. Paul knows they don't stand a chance in hell; they are just his particular political posturing for the desperate. When his run for president actually took off and appeared to have the momentum to succeed, he pulled a Ross Perot and ran away from it - keeping the people's money.

This irritated guy doesn't know it, because he doesn't get my rants, but almost everything Paul writes concerning money can be ripped apart with plain logic and honesty, as you know I frequently do. It is finally telling a bit at AFP, as Paul will be gradually played down there. They've invested in the phony "Ron Paul revolution" so they're pretty much stuck and have to be careful how they tread.

Rita said (June 19, 2010):

This was an outstanding article. Bravo Tony Blizzard. You solutions was brilliant in it's simplicity. The best solutions always are.

I've been watching Ron Paul for a while...I was hoping against hope that he was one of the "good" Freemasoons (I know, I'm naive). When I started seeing him all the time in the media suddenly after being "ignored" for so long though, I knew you were right again Henry! This article has connected the dots on the real purpose for his public appearances etc.

Sad that there are so few people we can count on.

Tom said (June 19, 2010):

Ditto Tony!! Paul is just a government invented(like Federal Reserve Notes) "people's champion". There is absolutely no wind behind his sails unless the FED gives it to him..When are people going to finally wake of from this delusion of being "represented", and having a "choice"..Just like their totally manufactured system "IT IS ALL FICTION"!!

The debt --- FICTION

That you are somehow obligated to THEIR DEBT through "Public Policy"--FICTION

That these people actually give a $h!t about the American people--FICTION

The corporate person they created through your birth certificate---FICTION

The money they "LOANED" you to buy the house they are now trying to steal through foreclosure---FICTION

IF YOU'RE the ONLY one that signed the front of YOUR mortgage note, then WHO's CREDIT CREATED the LOAN?(they'd like you to BELIEVE the bank LOANED you MONEY)-----MORE FICTION

Corporation of THE UNITED STATES has been in BANKRUPTCY since 1933--FACT

Emergency Banking Act of 1933 made all citizens obligatory to the national debt--FACT

The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK is acting as a "servicer" to the International CREDITORS(i.e. Rothschild, IMF, BOIS,ICBC)---FACT

The IRS is acting as the "collector" for the "servicer"

American citizens are linked to a giant DEBT TRUST accessed through their SOCIAL SECURITY Deposit Account.

The trustee of this account is the Treasury Secretary

YOU are ALWAYS A DEBTOR (unless you change you STATUS).



WE were NEVER TOLD how this WORKED

A CONtract without FULL DISCLOSURE is NO CONtract at ALL!!!

Michael said (June 18, 2010):

I write to support Ian's suggestion of a "self preservation strategy".
Paul has to play within a certain field and rules. It isn't prudent to show ones hand to early and sometimes in that great country folk know how, how to act uninformed when advantageous.

Ive listened to Judge Napolitano several times and he as well stops short at making certain suggestions knowing full well they would not be accepted positively by the deluded masses. (Generally in the area of child support and family court)

I further suggest that Paul, as anyone else, will only know the true nature of the Fed when he finally gets in there. Then maybe he will teach all of us something about federal money mechanics? Its just a thought.


Thanks Michael

You are overlooking the fact that Paul is a Freemason.

They win by leading the opposition. He is part of the controlled opposition. That's why the media pays attention to him.


Mack said (June 18, 2010):

Brilliant article by Tony Blizzard, he understands the problem and the

The problem with Ron Paul's agenda is that he is setting us up for a gold-based financial system - which sounds good at first, but what it
really means is repaying all the debts and interest that were created out of thin air by a private bank with hard real currency ... ouch!
That would be terrible. Especially after all the gold has been moved into the hands of those elites who know what is coming.

What we (and all countries in this situation) need to do is set-up a national bank, issue $13 trillion out of our own thin air to repay all
bonds, and thereby cancel the entire debt and all the usury on the debt FOREVER.

That "monetizing" would ruin our national "FICO score" but who cares about that? We would instantly have eliminated the "interest on the
debt" portion of the US Budget that is now about equal to the entire defence budget. The dollar would suffer a one-time devaluation also,
which means all the regular folks who are in debt could pay off all their debts. After that we issue our own credit for the good of the
country, and outlaw usury so no more "easy credit" is used to enslave people.

Tony Blizzard (author) said (June 18, 2010):

Gee, causing a little stir. Great.

James [below] makes the same error most American "patriots" make about the U.S. Constitution and gold and silver money when he says it made gold and silver the only lawful money. It does no such thing. Sloppy reading of the law as a means to back one's opinions does not change the law. The section to which he refers tells what STATES no longer may do under the constitution. "No STATE shall . . . make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt . . ."

The purpose here was to essentially put STATES out of the money creation business. At least some of the founders realized that if more than one body is creating money there is no way to control the volume of it, thus there is no way to control its value, a must for a medium of exchange, which is simply a measure of value in commerce.

He also refuses to understand that "coining" money means creating it, not just narrowly holding it to coins. Imagine the pants' pocket business that would generate.

Plus, anyone who quotes GBS as an authority really has much to learn about Shaw's true agenda - or is part of it. Shaw was one of the founders of Fabian Socialism, socialism by stealth so the people wouldn't understand what was being done to them by elitists such as Shaw. Why would this be necessary if Shaw's plans were honest and helpful to citizens?

JS said (June 18, 2010):

I read the article by Tony Blizzard, about Ron Paul, and I am glad he wrote this. I was heavily campaigning for Ron Paul for president during the presidential campaign, until I noticed him flashing the horned hand symbol (I was the one who emailed you the video links on this a few years ago). I knew at that point he was probably Freemason, but I had no hard evidence. The video included in this article is enough to convince me that Ron Paul is indeed a 'plant,' as I suspected. After he raised millions of dollars during the presidential campaign, and then suddenly 'dropped out of the race,' it was evident he was doing what 'they' (NWO) told him to do. I do not trust Ron Paul, or what he says. I realize now that every politician who was part of the presidential campaign was placed there by the NWO. We have treason in the white house, yet we all sleep....thinking these same politicians, such as Ron Paul, will save us. Not so! Until Americans wake up and throw out the traitors, ALL OF THEM, the whole lot of them, we will lose this country. Voting in new 'plants' is not going to save this country. I wonder when Americans will realize they are being duped by both Democrats and Republicans? I fear it will be too late when they do.

PS. I think it is interesting to note that when I sent you the links about Ron Paul flashing the horned hand symbol, I also emailed Jeff Rense, Truthseeker, propagandamatrix, and infowars. You responded and posted online, Rense responded and posted the info online, Truthseeker responded and posted online...but propagandamatrix and infowars IGNORED my emails, and never questioned or mentioned online the fact that Paul was flashing illuminati hand signs. To this day, they never have. Of course, Alex Jones constantly has Paul on as a guest. Could it be that these two news sites remained silent about this obvious satanic hand gesture by Paul because they are 'plants' themselves to further the NWO agenda? I suspect so.

Paul said (June 18, 2010):

Ron Paul represents the "conservative, Libertarian" faction of thinking in America, and to the extent that he is "in error," it's a measure, I think, of the extent to which Libertarian thinking in general is in error. Ayn Randian laissez-faire capitalism sounds great, certainly, but Ayn Rand was -- very literally -- in bed w/ the likes of Rockefeller and Rothschild (and Alan Greenspan), and here is where the Libertarians go in error: a very careful examination of Austrian economics (and the whole "gold is money" movement) will reveal that it was the Rockefellers (and their interests) who largely funded and promoted the whole school of Austrian thinking and gold-is-money economics.

You see, like any masters of Hegelian dialectics, the Rockefellers always want to play both sides.

The Rockefellers love a banker-controller fiat money system, and they love a gold-backed money system (in fact, in the Wizard of Oz - the Wizard of Ounces - it is the "gold standard" yellow brick road that leads to the "green paper" of Emerald City). They know there will be political opposition to the banker-fiat money, so they fund and control the gold-backed school of thinking also (i.e., Austrian economics), to have all bases covered and to give an intellectual "outlet" to frustrated Libertarians. In other words, the Rockefellers back BOTH Keynes and Hayek, so to speak. In fact, just think what would happen if we went back to a gold-backed money system now: the disparities would be greater than they were 100 years ago, since now gold is concentrated into even fewer hands.

What the Rockefellers/Rothschilds hate most is the Lincoln system of greenbacks: government fiat that is outside the control of their interest rates.

And you see how they dealt w/ Lincoln.

James said (June 18, 2010):

The article attacking Ron Paul is perhaps the worst I have ever seen on your website, and impairs your credibility generally.

The notion that we can trust the government to issue bills “to move trade enough to prevent stagnation but not enough to permit speculation” has a grotesquely unfounded faith in government that you do not exhibit in any other area. The Constitution made gold and silver the only lawful money to prevent precisely what has happened to us (the debt spiral).

You need a lot of education on this issue, and you could start by reading Alan Greenspan’s 1967 article on gold and freedom ( (one of the ironies of history that he wrote it).

I leave you with one quote:

“You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold.”

George Bernard Shaw



With respect, your view (and GBS's) is moronic. There can never be nearly enough gold to provide sufficient liquidity. That's why money is merely a medium of exchange. It doesn't need to have inherent value. The problem is, we don't need to rely on private bankers to supply the medium (and be reimbursed with interest!)

Our government can produce it alone. The reason it doesn't (and why we can't "rely" on it) is because our politicians and media have been bought by the private bankers.


Charles said (June 18, 2010):

Is Mr. Blizzard, if indeed that is his real name, writing about the Ron Paul that authored the Audit The Fed Bill that recently passed the House Of Representatives but was quashed in the Senate?

Henry! It's great to allow many voices to speak on your website, but don't forget each author and each article is a reflection on YOU!!!

I am concerned and protective of your reputation. I have admired you for years.



This web site specializes in disabusing dupes.
Did you understand Tony's argument? Ron Paul is calling for auditing the Fed. He should be demanding that it be abolished.


Ian said (June 18, 2010):

We've emailed before and I have commented on your site. I have wondered quite a bit about whether or not Ron Paul was really on the dark side or ours. One indication he is on the dark side is that he gets so much air time in the controlled media. He obviously also never tells the whole story about the Fed, but I have taken this as a self-preservation strategy. A couple of things that indicate he is not on their side is that he oft genuinely appears to give a damn countenance-wise, and that he has a fairly lengthy record, as far as I can substantiate, of actually accomplishing good works.

Also, I would like to make known to you my blog, and would like to know what you think of it. The subject matter pertains to the things discussed in our sphere of the Internet. An attitude I maintain is to fall back on regular American thinking, if you will, of the variety that was prevalent when a strong European and Christian majority predominated American society, politics and economics. America was at one point, by and large, free, and during those times common Americans said what was on their minds. Another point of view I maintain is that what we are dealing with is in no way impossible to overcome (the corollary being that it is, indeed, impossible - a very all-encompassing term).

Please take a look. I would particularly very much like to know what you think of my thoughts underlying "The Solution" and the "Federal Reserve Essay" sections.

Bill said (June 18, 2010):

Ron Paul makes sense. He wrote a best-selling book called End the Fed. I don't sense any Masonic influence. I am a member of the TKE fraternity and I have no idea about the source of their rituals. I imagine the same is true of Ron Paul, even though he is a member of LXA. If he is the controlled opposition, he is doing one heck of a job!

Anthony Migchels said (June 18, 2010):

Tony is absolutely right to point out the fact that it is not the debt, but the interest that is the problem. He, Thomas Edison, Abe Lincoln and many others are of course totally right that if the state can issue a bond, it can issue a bill.

The other problem with the debt lie is, that it makes many people fall for that other favorite banker toy: Gold as currency.
If debt is the problem, then why not go gold, is what the mind controllers have niftily put into many brains.

As you know I don't believe state issued bills are the only solution. The problem with it right now is simple: it is not going to happen, because the state is property of the usurers.

The alternative is to have private institutions create debt based (sic) interest free currency.

An eloquent advocate of this solution is Mike Montagne with his Mathematically Perfected Economy. He is a little awkward in some ways, but he is a sharp thinker on monetary issues who is not getting sufficient airtime.

Brian said (June 18, 2010):

Treasonous "governments" will never address this problem, so it's up to the people to find a way out of the trap.

I've often thought that if "We, the People", as the true Sovereign Beings who empower all governments, could find some way of individually creating our own tokens or IOUs (we wouldn't be allowed to call it "money" or "currency" under current corrupt laws), we could start to make the transition toward disempowering the bankers.

The problem as I see it is that, as an example, if I were to issue a few personal IOUs under such a plan, any dishonest person could then make a thousand photocopies with my name on them, immediately reducing me to the status of bankrupt slave, even worse than we all are today.

Perhaps the old system of Tally Sticks (a notched stick which is then split in half) could make a comeback, but even this would be defeated by precision engineering.

There has to be a simple solution, but I can't imagine what it might be, short of a revolution.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at