TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Secret Criminal Society of the Federal Reserve (Part II)
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »
Gotcha. Cleared that up.
Here's some clarification on the Kennedy/Fed conpiracy as well.
Pretty good site.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Gotcha. Cleared that up. Here's some clarification on the Kennedy/Fed conpiracy as well. Pretty good site. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Here is the actual Emergency Banking Act itself. Find me the part in which the Federal Government has been dissolved. http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Do...gBank_1933.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton You haven't cleared anything up. In the course of my own research, I have already looked at that grainy scan of text without you posting it. Great, you found a scan, but that's not what was asked of you. I asked you to do something very specific and really have no idea how you could not have understood what I was asking. Here, I'll restate it... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} I suppose I should have stated that the scan does not mesh with the other written statement, rendering it a false statement. It cleared it up for me. :P |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton No where in the constitution does it require the Federal Government to use gold or silver as legal tender. The Treasury coins money, so that's in line with constitution. As for counterfeiting, it was rampant even with the gold standard. Especially, since states were printing their own currencies, it was so easy to counterfeit money. |
| quote: |
| "The prohibition in the constitution to make any thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts is express and universal. The framers of the constitution regarded it as an evil to be repelled without modification; they have, therefore, left nothing to be inferred or deduced from construction on this subject." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827) |
| quote: |
| HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE DEFIED THE CONSTITUTION As I discussed in Chapter 3, the original reasons the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913, namely to provide a superior currency and an elastic money supply, ultimately paved the way to the financial hell into which we are about to enter. The Federal reserve notes that replaced gold and silver certificates became IOU nothings ("Greenies," as my dad called them in The Biggest Con), and the creation of a central bank enabled the government camel to get its nose under the monetary tent, where it now permanently resides. This was all contrary to the intention of the founding fathers, who in their wisdom specially wrote the Constitution to prohibit the monetary fraud currently being perpetrated. The Constitution denies the states the power to make anything other than gold or silver coins legal tender in payment of debts. The Constitution confers no power on the federal government to make anything legal tender, nor does it authorize the government to issue bills of credit, which was a term for paper money. In fact, in the original draft of the Constitution that power was included but it was struck down. So it was clear that the government doesn't have the power to print money. The government does not have the power to do anything but coin gold and silver, which the state can then declare to be legal tender in payment of debts. And the reason the federal government wasn't given that power was because the framers didn't want it to have the power to create inflation. They had just experienced it firsthand with the Continental dollar, which ended up being worth around 10 cents and gave rise to the expression "not worth a Continental." So the founding fathers knew what they were doing. They knew inflation was a problem in the Greek city-states and in the Roman Empire and wanted a limited government without the power to issue paper money. - Peter D. Schiff, Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, John Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp 85-86 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Try reading Article 1, Sections 8 and 10 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures Section 10. No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts |
| quote: |
| MEET EDWARD FLAHERTY, CONSPIRACY POO-POOIST A response to a critic of The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin Edward Flaherty is a Ph.D. of Economics who has been critical of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second look at the Federal Reserve. Periodically I receive inquiries from readers who have visited Flaherty's web site, and they want to know if I can rebut what he says. I put this off for a long time because, first, his critique is lengthy and loaded with minutia that requires considerable time to respond properly and, second, the number of inquiries has been so small as to place the importance of this task far down on my list of priorities. Nevertheless, whenever I get an inquiry, I dread that my reader may think that a lack of response is a sign of not being able to defend my work; so, at last, I decided to step up to the plate and swing at the ball that Flaherty has thrown in my direction. The essence of Flaherty's critique is that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve must be some kind of a kook, totally lacking in scholarship. He lumps all Fed critics together, those who bring scholarship to the topic as well as those who do not, and the mixture tends to discredit everyone. It is an old tactic of dumping garbage into the grocery bag so that it all smells like garbage and is rejected in total. On September 5, 2004, I received an email from a reader who had compared comments made in my recorded lecture with what Flaherty's web site says and asked for clarification. What follows is his inquiry with my reply embedded at appropriate locations. My reader begins by quoting from my recorded lecture, followed by a quote from Eustace Mullins: My lecture: I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I�d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I�m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking so that, hopefully, you�ll remember them:
My reply: I stand firmly behind my seven points but I do not agree with Mullins on this. Please do not lump my work with other writers. Flaherty does this a lot. Guilt by association is a ploy that must be challenged and rejected. Flaherty: It would be a mistake to examine these conspiracy theories.... My reply: Stop right there. There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase �conspiracy theory� with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. Flaherty continued: ... outside the context in which they were written. My reply: I try hard not to present text outside its context. When searching through hundreds of documents and thousands of pages, it is inevitable that some subtleties of context may be missed, but so far I have not yet been advised of any instances of this. I welcome any corrections; but, until specifics are brought to my attention, I stand firm on everything I have written. Furthermore, I resent the implication that my work could not stand without taking text out of context. Flaherty: All the conspiracy authors whose work I study here profess a belief in the alleged �New World Order� conspiracy, or some variant thereof. My reply: An informed reader would not waste time beyond this point. It is absurd to claim that a blueprint for a New World Order based on the model of collectivism is merely �alleged.� The evidence that this is a demonstrable fact of modern history abounds. Some of that evidence is presented in my work, The Future Is Calling, found in the Issues section of this web site. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good. Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. My reply: Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control. One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false. Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed. My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed�s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed�s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no �profit� on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That�s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation�s money supply. Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks. My reply: Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly �break the grip of the money trust,� the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected. What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich�s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for �big-business Republicans� and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, �defenders of the working man.� It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that �the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks� cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it. Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank�s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank�s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money. My reply: Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank�s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let�s say 6.5% interest. That�s a spread of 5%. Although that�s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn�t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don�t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well. Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous �competitive� amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that �This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank�s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money,� one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid. Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily. My reply: I agree with Flaherty on this issue and often have said so in the Q&A portions of my lectures. Please note that this is not contradictory to what I wrote in The Creature. What I said there is an accurate historical fact. There is little doubt in my mind that the vote would have passed eventually, but by slipping it through as they did, it circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate. I have never commented on the Constitutionality question, although I tend to think that a strict interpretation would have made this vote invalid. The problem here, however, has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Act but with the rules of Congress. Flaherty: Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of �debt-free� money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran�s book, The Debt Virus. Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of �debt-free� money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt. My reply: I object to being lumped together with other analysts on this issue. I did not write The Debt Virus, I wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth Flaherty: Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed�s treachery. Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office. My reply: I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that �any independent inspection would reveal the Fed�s treachery.� What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank�s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks. My reply: Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished. http://www.freedom-force.org/freedo...on=meetflaherty |
| quote: |
| "They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfil that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such a standard of value; and on account of the impossibility which was foreseen of otherwise preventing the inequalities and the confusion necessarily incident to different views of policy, which in different communities would be brought to bear on this subject. The power to coin money being thus given to Congress, founded on public necessity, it must carry with it the correlative power of protecting the creature and object of that power. It cannot be imputed to wise and practical statesmen, nor is it consistent with common sense, that they should have vested this high and exclusive authority, and with a view to objects partaking of the magnitude of the authority itself, only to be rendered immediately vain and useless, as must have been the case had the government been left disabled and impotent as to the only means of securing the objects in contemplation." U.S. v. MARIGOLD, 50 U.S. 567-568 (1850) http://supreme.justia.com/us/50/560/case.html http://laws.findlaw.com/us/50/560.html |
| quote: |
| The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson Did the president lament the day he "unwittingly ruined" his country by creating the Federal Reserve? Andrew Leonard Dec. 21, 2007 | Did Woodrow Wilson bitterly regret his role in creating the Federal Reserve? Some readers of my post yesterday on Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve believe so. Two of them proffered an identical quote as evidence.
Two separate portions of the quote appear in The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People," published in 1913. "The New Freedom" is a distillation of campaign speeches Wilson made while running for President in 1911. On page 185 there is the following section:
UPDATE: Via e-mail, John M. Cooper, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and the author of several books on Woodrow Wilson, writes: "I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride." http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007...erve/print.html |
which previously identified loser is gallantrybot?
just when i thought we were free of the ron paul nutcases...
| quote: |
| During the spring of next year we see: (1) A second larger wave of residential housing mortgage failures; (2) The first big wave of auto loan failures and repossessions; (3) Over $40 billion in credit card defaults, smashing the bank lenders; (4) The first wave of commercial mortgage failures and foreclosures on shopping malls, office buildings and other commercials; (5) And finally, the grand smashing finale of CDS Credit Default Swaps originated with No margin money or down payments! We heard today the total is 500 trillion! I cannot even fathom that number. These five converging train wrecks could take the Dow from a dead cat bounce of 10400-10800 back to 7250, or even 6600... http://www.kitco.com/ind/Wiegand/dec222008.html |
Never failing to plagiarize an argument...
...welcome back trancer. Hopefully you won't be such a pussy, you put the entire forum on your ignore list...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Never failing to plagiarize an argument... ...welcome back trancer. Hopefully you won't be such a pussy, you put the entire forum on your ignore list... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gallantrybot It might be half argument and half public service announcement but it's definitely not plagiarism until one forgets to reference the source material. |
| quote: |
| Anyway, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, aren't I? If I were to waste my time on you by speaking at length about anything at all, you would say that I'm just an anonymous person on the internet with no credibility. But when I point to others who are noted or at least somewhat reputable in our society who have already covered the same material in one aspect or another, you erroneously say that I'm plagiarizing. |
| quote: |
| It would normally be a good tactic for someone like yourself to detract from what anyone else has to say but I caught on to it a while ago and thus have to call it out for the blindly adversarial and propagandistic BS that it is. |
| quote: |
| It's also rather interesting to note how you goons posted so little in this forum while I was gone but I pop in for just a few quick posts and you all scurry back here again to try and discredit me. |
watch out krypton, he'll sue you.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton You never made an argument. Did you forget or do you want to keep posting other people's arguments as your very own? The fact that you feel above all of us to attempt to address our points with your own well thought out arguments merely demonstrates your feeble ability to regurgitate other people's arguments as your own. Hence, plagiarism. Or propagandizing. Take your pick... What do you have to say? We're STILL waiting. All you ever do is regurgitate other people's arguments. Funny you speak of "propagandistic BS". See, we speak our minds. You relay, like the plagiarizing fish you are, extremist libertarian propaganda. Nice one champ... Still running around with a bloated ego are we? LOL...Get over yourself m8... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gallantrybot The argument had been made quite some time ago. Or did YOU forget? |
| quote: |
| It's not that I feel above anyone. Quite the opposite, really. I really just don't have the time or the patience to argue with a bunch of blind contrarians who fail to see the writing on the wall even after I've already shoved their faces in it and screamed, "LOOOOOK!!!" on more occasions than I even care to count. |
| quote: |
| I also wouldn't call regurgitating the governments talking points your "own well thought out arguments" because it's still really the same color but just in a different tone. |
| quote: |
| Extremist Libertarian propaganda? lol - But wasn't our country originally founded upon Libertarian principles? Hence, why America |
| quote: |
| And you wonder why I put you on ignore the first time? You can't even maintain a simple correspondence without resorting to personal attacks in the effort to denigrate me and/or the efforts that I've put forth in order to shed the light of truth upon the dark recesses of our world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN just when i thought we were free of the ron paul nutcases... |
Where did you get the idea that libertarians were against traffic lights and police krypt? You are making a huge strawman if you are basing your attacks on that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN watch out krypton, he'll sue you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gallantrybot I really just don't have the time or the patience to argue with a bunch of blind contrarians who fail to see the writing on the wall even after I've already shoved their faces in it and screamed, "LOOOOOK!!!" on more occasions than I even care to count. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Where did you get the idea that libertarians were against traffic lights and police krypt? You are making a huge strawman if you are basing your attacks on that. |
At least some people get it.
Ron Paul on Fox Business News - THE FED is criminal
Dr. Ron Paul - German hyperinflation
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.