I see nothing but trivial and straw man hypotheses. These hypotheses are used by novices. They don't address the fundamental issues with the actions and policies taken by the Federal Reserve.
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm
1. The Federal Reserve Act was the product of a secret, conspiratorial meeting - True. Pandering and pretending that the jekyll Island meeting was useless is denial. There is ample documentation of its importance.
2. The Federal Reserve Act passed Congress illegally - not true. it was done shoddily, when many members were already gone, it still passed.
3. The Fed and paper money are unconstitutional - This is true, but it was the congress that violated the constitution, the executive signed it, and the Supreme Court didn't challenge it. So the congress could repeal it or if some case came up and the Supreme Court had sufficient reason to challenge it, they could.
4. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank out to make a profit at the taxpayers' expense - The only make money to pay operational costs (yes it is extravagant and at tax payer expense) and they are privately owned cartels (holding companies). Excess money (profit) is given to the Treasury.
5. The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners - Certainly. The Multinationals that have stock in the Fed system are not limited to the US banks. Foreign money has always wanted to influence the inflation of rival countries. Why would English and German banks lobby so hard for a central bank only to not help comprise its membership?
6. The Federal Reserve has never been audited - In a full extent, no. Ron Paul writes at length about the exemptions from GAO audit that we need. Foreign governments, foreign central banks, private banks/corporations (Pentagon/CIA/JPM? all possible), and International Financial Organizations (IMF, BIS, World Bank) I promise on my own life that any "independent" auditors are being paid by the banks to do the audit. Think of a ratings agency rating securites for a bank that is paying them. Conflict of interest (high level of suspicion of corruption) Also under any circumstance if the BIS audits the FED and forces hte FED to pay money to some other bank, then the Congress never is allowed to find out.
7. The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use - Indirectly, through the quantity purchase of bonds they charge interest on the Credit that the FED issues and since FED RES notes are promissory notes, defacto, the economy does pay interest on the money to the banks, who pay it to the FED.
8. But for the Federal Reserve, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt - I doubt it, most countries run deficits, but they would have limits as the savings of the country would deplete and interest rates rise in that function. Some people mix this up with the legitimate argument that since FED RES notes represent debt, that if the government paid off all of the debt then there would be no money. But this is a symptom of the creidt/debt money situation and the current ridiculous around legal money in the US. The FED members have commented on the miraculousness that the system works at all.
9. President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power - This is one theory (with Silver Issues and junk) i tend to think that it was more likely the CIA and Joint Chiefs (Op Zapata/ Op 40). Which in turn implicates the banks, but only indirectly through their war profiteering.
10. Louis T. McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve scam in the Congressional Record - He didn't really expose it. He yelled and made up numbers and very vague extreme accusations, some of which were true some of which were alex jones like sensationalism. He called them out for laundering money to the Soviets (the FED through Chase Bank) His reference to a 'scientifically' 'created' depression is a euphemism to the arguemnts at the time. Proponents of the FED said that there would never be another downturn again since the bankers could scientifically manage the credit system (all banks in uniform) but as we have seen they cannot be trusted.
Some of these are legit some aren't. The FED is the absolute HUB of any modern day conspiracy that isn't related to the Vatican.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Note also that the member commercial banks enjoy immense profits as a result of interest earned on money multiplication on top of the new money created by the Fed. They don't need the Fed's "profits"... the Fed is just the headquarters for the commercial banks to meet and agree on how they're going to shaft the rest of us.
New to the site, just learned that the FED makes no profit- something that seems at odds to what the entire rest of the internet is saying. The money that the member banks make on the interest... how much of that if any balances out later when the FED contracts the money supply?(less to lend) or does that then become the sole burden to bear for the public- forclosures, ect? I know the FED is screwing us, just wondering who is getting the most benefit. Rockefellers helped set up the Fed Reserve Act and isn't Chase one of the member banks? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
Not great at finance and economics but I wanna figure this out or die trying, how'm I doin:
1 - If you believe Jackson, the central bank exercises too much influence over members of congress meaning all the government waste and programs could be contrived as a means to get banks more money to lend.
2 - Fed basically counterfeits money for the government when it comes up short, increasing the money supply
3 - Money increase goes straight to the banks who loan it out and make bazillions.
4 - Those bazillions are actually the value of the dollar that has declined... basically stolen from the public's wealth.
Why do member banks get the new money? If the new money is actually the inflation value the public is losing shouldn't they fly the new money in a big plane over my house and dump it? Wouldn't that be more fair? ;)
MinutemanX, you're on the right track. Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island" puts it all in perspective, and more. Well worth reading.
If the new money is actually the inflation value the public is losing shouldn't they fly the new money in a big plane over my house and dump it? Wouldn't that be more fair? ;)
You would think that if the problem is people defaulting on debts that the argument could be made that dumping money in my backyard would be better than giving it to the banks and NOT paying down the people's debts that they were defaulting on.
This point can be contended historically. The FED is the thrid central bank in the United States. There are legal tender rulings before and after the Civil War to support paper money and the greenback. Actually, those legal tender rulings are some of the longest opinions and dissents in the history of the court. That same Supreme Court has also upheld Congess can delegate anything that is not “strictly and exclusively legislative”
I might also disagree slightly with your characterization of McFadden, who was a career banker. I think the accusations were pretty specific... criminal conspiracy. Introduced by resolution and followed up up with a motion to impeach after no action was taken. I don't think his speech talking about Russia was all that vague either. However I would not dispute he was also a politician and politicians are extremist drama queens
3. The Fed and paper money are unconstitutional - This is true, but it was the congress that violated the constitution, the executive signed it, and the Supreme Court didn't challenge it. So the congress could repeal it or if some case came up and the Supreme Court had sufficient reason to challenge it, they could. This point can be contended historically. The FED is the thrid central bank in the United States. There are legal tender rulings before and after the Civil War to support paper money and the greenback. Actually, those legal tender rulings are some of the longest opinions and dissents in the history of the court. That same Supreme Court has also upheld Congess can delegate anything that is not “strictly and exclusively legislative” I might also disagree slightly with your characterization of McFadden, who was a career banker. I think the accusations were pretty specific... criminal conspiracy. Introduced by resolution and followed up up with a motion to impeach after no action was taken. I don't think his speech talking about Russia was all that vague either. However I would not dispute he was also a politician and politicians are extremist drama queens
and were those other central banks constitutional? What can be contested historically? Maybury vs. Madison? Jackson's withdrawal? The legal tender laws are also passed by the Congress and all other branches have failed to recognize their incompatibility. General Grant got rid of Lincolns LTLs and moved the dollar back to gold.
McFadden knew what was going on, most heads of the Banking committee know that is why they all speak out. McFadden was likely poinsoned by those bankers he was attacking. I'm glad McFadden did what he did, but he is not some anti-banking hero. Some people think he is a result of the Red Scare and an anti-jew. The Russia speech, like i said, he called out very specific actors because he knew what they were doing.
Em_ptySkin:9. President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power - This is one theory (with Silver Issues and junk) i tend to think that it was more likely the CIA and Joint Chiefs (Op Zapata/ Op 40). Which in turn implicates the banks, but only indirectly through their war profiteering.
G. Edward Griffin offers a pretty good assessment on this one too.
Em_ptySkin:9. President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power - This is one theory (with Silver Issues and junk) i tend to think that it was more likely the CIA and Joint Chiefs (Op Zapata/ Op 40). Which in turn implicates the banks, but only indirectly through their war profiteering. G. Edward Griffin offers a pretty good assessment on this one too.
"The proponents of the JFK Myth assert that Kennedy was assassinated because he was about to issue Silver Certificates, thereby denying the bankers their customary interest payments on the nation's currency. However, the reality was just the opposite. Previously, the President could have issued Silver Certificates on his own authority; but, with the signing of EO 11110, he delegated that authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. At that time, the Secretary of the Treasury was Douglas Dillon from a well-known and powerful banking family. That means Kennedy surrendered the power to issue Silver Certificates and gave it to a member of the banking fraternity who could do with it as he pleased "without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President." Dillon, of course, would have strong motive to preserve the dominance of Federal Reserve Notes. The theory that Kennedy was getting ready to issue Silver Certificates is without evidence or logic."
aweome link.
Says it all.
He was never in control of anything except when he manned up and botched the bay of pigs. That is maybe why Ron Paul's brother says that the Treasury Sec. has more power than anyone else in the executive branch.
The point that can be contested is:
The Fed and paper money are unconstitutional - This is true
Please articulate the exact reason the FED or paper money are unconstitutional and I will cite an appropriate rebuttal to contest the point....
Live_Free_Or_Die: The point that can be contested is: The Fed and paper money are unconstitutional - This is true Please articulate the exact reason the FED or paper money are unconstitutional and I will cite an appropriate rebuttal to contest the point....
Sure. Something is "unconstitutional" typically because the authority for it is not specifically granted in the Constitution. And an entity like the Fed, that has the powers and functions it does, is not granted. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. Having anything but gold or silver be money is not granted in the Constitution, therefore it is unconstitutional.
To make sure I properly cite a response, if you and I as individuals were to disagree on some provision in the Constitution, who is the final arbitrator?
It would appear to me that there is only one final arbitrator for the Constitution that can impact the entire union of the several states. The Supreme Court.
But it would also appear to me that States or We The People, meaning a majority of people collectively as a sovereign political class in the manner the Constitution was ratified by delegate conventions among states, are also final arbitrators on whether a thing is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" as it would apply in a specific State or geographical territory.
An interesting dymanic. We The People appears to be a higher authority but more limited in jurisdiction to nullify, whereas the Supreme Court is a lessor authority than We The People but greater jurisdiction to nullify among the several states.
I am unaware of any other arbitrators authorized by the Constitution to deem something "unconstitutional" or "constitutional". Is my understanding of constitutional authority to deem something "unconstitutional" or "constitutional" correct?
Your synopsis sounds accurate, but I would warn you that simply claiming something is specified in a document doesn't make it so...even if you are an "authorized arbitrator". If an emperor walks around without clothes, and claims he is wearing clothes, just because no one has the standing to say he's wrong doesn't mean he is right.
So while I'm not quite sure where you think you're going with this, I'm also not sure it matters. The document either specifies something or it doesn't. Even if a "Supreme Court" decides to claim the document is "living" and openly change the definition of words, it doesn't change what the words meant at the time they were written and ratified.
So proceed with your "appropriate rebuttal to contest" the fact that the Fed and paper money are not specified in the Constitution, but I'd be surprised if I haven't heard it before.
Its on my list... I actually got to listen to a 4-something hour Griffin seminar posted on Google a while back- really informative and I really like Griffin for exposing me to the cancer cure. Maybe it was the treatments, maybe the apricot kernels, maybe both- God's call... but my dad no longer has cancer.
About Mcfadden:
I found the most interesting part of his speech when he declared the Federal Reserve was pumping billions of dollars of our gold into pre-nazi Germany. Was there ever any proof or evidence- even vague- to support this? I have no doubt that something like this was done- people say Hitler was a genius(not), but I always said being smart never funded a massive war machine. I like the Anthony Sutton perspective.
About Kennedy:
I bought into the Kennedy thing till I actually read his "NWO Speech". What a load of bunk! He was actually asking the press to help keep government actions secret not the other way around. And look at his dad Joseph, one of the few insiders who made a killing on the stock market crash of 1929. FDR's son-in-law Curtis B. Dall noted that Joseph Kennedy "belonged" to the banking elite, as witnessed by his being pulled from his Ambassador post in London back to Florida after his "over my dead body" remarks made about the U.S. entering WWII.
Kennedy was most definately assassinated by insiders and the secret service; his motorcade cover was pulled sticking him out front, the window was left open at the depository against SS protocol, His head flew back after being hit- not forward, and Oswald was definately a patsy. I'm more inclined to believe the E. Howard Hunt confession over a banking conspiracy in this case. Just an NWO internal power struggle.