Historical Response #23: Ellen Brown Backs Off from Her Reference to a Phony 1892 Manifesto of Unnamed Bankers, but Not the 1934 "Update."
Ellen Brown backs off from another obviously phony document by saying that she never said it was a valid document.
The document in question is the so-called Bankers' Manifesto of 1892. I showed that it is bogus.
Here is her response:
23. A bogus document: "Bankers' Manifesto of 1892?I acknowledged that it was of questionable derivation. Here is what I wrote (p 105):
A document called "The Bankers Manifesto of 1892" suggested that it was all part of a deliberate plan by the bankers to disenfranchise the farmers and laborers of their homes and property. This is another document with obscure origins, but its introduction to Congress is attributed to Representative Charles Lindbergh Sr., the father of the famous aviator, who served in Congress between 1903 and 1913.
Read her words carefully. She said that the document is "obscure." Note: the word "obscure" is not the same as "questionable derivation." In any case, the document is not obscure. It's obviously bogus.
She originally said that "it is attributed" to Lindbergh, Sr. It is? By whom? Where? So what?
She did even not have his dates of service in Congress correct. She never verified anything about this document or Lindbergh.
Question: Why did she cite it at all? Question: Why wind up looking like the kid caught with her hand in the cookie jar? Answer: because she thought she could get away with it. She is a lawyer, after all.
She conveniently neglected to respond to my other challenge.
Then she adds fuel to the fire. On page 147, she quotes from The Bankers Manifesto of 1934, an update of the 1892 manifesto. There is no original source documentation for this manifesto, either. I dare her (or anyone else) to provide it.
She did not provide it in her response. She did not even mention it. In her book, she offered no warning against it, not even the word "obscure."
She has grabbed every phony document that she could extract from previous Greenbackers' books, whose authors did the same with earlier Greenbacker books. She has presented a case for Greenbacks based on phony documents. Then, because I called her out in full public view, her repeated response is, "I never said the evidence was true."
Here is the scholar's rule: "If the evidence is not verifiable, don't refer to it."
The lawyer's rule is different: "If you can fool the jury and get away with it, you win the case. Nothing else matters."
For three years, she got away with it. Then I showed up.
She is an incompetent scholar. Don't trust her.