Even More On the Platinum-Coin Idea

The idea has been around in one form or another since at least 1992.

Bo Gritz, August of 1992:

Well now, I started digging around in the Treasury a little
bit and it's kind of interesting. I've had a lot of help.
"There's a guy named Byron Dale, he puts this out, and Byron
said, "Bo, last year we minted five hundred million dollars
in coins." Does anybody have a quarter? How much do you
think a quarter is actually worth? It costs us... (Someone
hands Bo a quarter) Thank you. Now, you'll see why you
won't get this back because it's really worthless! A
quarter costs 1.008 cents to make. So, there's no silver in
there. Is there? No. And so that quarter only costs a
cent, but when we give it to the Federal Reserve, they have
to give us credit for 25 cents. They have to give us credit
for the face value. Are you beginning to follow me here?
And so when we mint a silver dollar, it's not really silver,
but how much credit must they give the debt of the United
States? One dollar. It only costs us about 2 cents to do
that, but, it's a dollar. As a matter of fact, a Susan B.
Anthony costs a lot less than a half a dollar does because
it's smaller.

Well, if that's true... Let's make sure we've got it all
right, so there won't be any confusion here when you leave
today. You're going to know without locking Congress up at
Andrews Air Force Base exactly how to get America out of
debt if these are given to them at 2 cents because that's
all it costs to make and yet they loan them back to us at
face value and remember that now so we're four trillion
dollars in debt with these, aren't we? And, if this only
costs a cent to make, but they have to give us 25 cents
credit, what is wrong with minting a giant coin (Bo holds up
a 5" diameter, giant coin) that says "Four Trillion
Dollars Debt of the United States Paid in Full In God We
Trust." (Huge round of applause.) Now, I ask you, let's be
very clear about it: is that legal? I'd be very
enthusiastic if I thought I could get my great grandkids, my
grandchild who's thirteen now and my three mules and a
daughter, if I could get them out of debt because they all
owe $42,000. That's what every one of you owe and that's
what your kids owe and if you're born today, that's the
price of being an American. I'd be excited about thinking
on this because is this coin going to be made out of gold?
Is it going to be made out of silver? No, it has to be made
out of pot metal because it has to be worthless! It has to
equal what it is that they have been giving us all this

I verified it directly with Byron Dale that the idea was not Byron's but Bo's as far as Byron knows. I believe that the idea was original with Bo Gritz.


See also:
More on the Platinum-Coin Idea
More On the Platinum Coin
Ending Poverty
William Jennings Bryan: United States Notes
Truth on $1 Trillion Platinum Coin


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.