What makes me mad is that this article appeared only twelve days after another article I wrote titled "Fraud from Uncle Scam" that was headlined on Ether Zone under a cartoon of a toothy Uncle Sam with a bag of money in one hand and a spiked "walk softly" club in the other. I consider this article one of my best in trying to explain the rip-off of almost $3 trillion in fraudulent trust funds.

The response to the fraud article was nothing—zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat—not one email, not a single one. The contrast is striking and inescapable.

Obviously, there are many people who will jump at the chance to defend the U.S. Treasury when it may be doing something right and a much greater majority who simply "don't want to hear it" when the same organization participates in the greatest financial fraud in American history.

What else am I to think? Should I merely write it off as people tired of hearing me rant on the same subject over and over or maybe it's due to a public overcome with shock and awe at the idea that their own public servants are flagrantly committing a crime that dwarfs crimes committed by Enron and other private sector crooks? Or am I just another screwball off on a tangent, possibly crazy, or carrying out some sort of personal vendetta against the government?

Do you really think that I don't continually question myself on these things when I seem to be just about the only person in the country dealing with this subject?

When it comes to the massive fraud our government carries out in the hundreds of billions per year, I would love to receive the sort of perceptive and intelligent questions that I received about the bond recall so that I could answer them one by one.

When I wrote the article about the recall of 30 year bonds issued on May 15, 1979, I tried to look up the "call" factor, tried to find if there was a clause in the honest contract that allowed the Treasury to stop paying interest on these bonds with proper notice. Unfortunately or deliberately, depending on how you look at it, the online Treasury records only go back as far as 1980.

I did not take the time to write the Treasury's Public Affairs people to ask them. Heck, I'm still waiting to hear from them about the $88.6 billion "Unconditional Gift Fund" for the State Department that mysteriously disappeared from the trust fund list at the close of fiscal 2003 last September thirtieth.

Although the 30 year bond has not been offered since November, 2001, there are still a lot of these long term bonds out there dating back to 1974 or 1975 issues.

I still don't know if or why this possible clause would go into effect after 25 years. Why it wasn't 20 years or less? And why does the advance notice seem to be exactly four months ahead of May 15, 2004 instead of the more typical 90 days?

As far as I'm concerned, these are all minor points. Our government people are certainly not dumb. And refinancing this debt at a savings of $544 million would definitely be a good thing to throw against the national debt they ran up by more than a thousand times that amount last year alone.

But I stand behind the idea that many who purchased these bonds as the safest investment in the world, particularly if they were individuals as the Treasury claims, expected to be paid 9.125 percent interest for the full 30 years. That was a significant factor in their initial purchase and now the Treasury is backing off of the government's end of the commitment and doing so on what may or may not be a technicality.

This is backed up by some of the positive email I received and at least one broker who told me he was "taught" that U.S. Treasury securities were "not callable" and that's what distinguishes them from "munies" (Municipal Bonds). Of course, Treasuries are also backed by every taxpayer in the nation while Municipal Bonds are only backed by the people in your local municipality.