TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Secret Criminal Society of the Federal Reserve
Pages (10): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the federal reserve is not a "private bank". |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Yes it is. It is not owned by the government. But if you have some third party source explaining your point, by all means present it.. |
| quote: |
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government." The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. |
| quote: |
| The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government." |
This is a great online book...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gf...vV1NsTA#PPP1,M1
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton How about Chapter 1, section 6? It talks about the secret meeting of international bankers on Jekyll Island. Specifically, they wanted to create the Federal Reserve so that they could control the issuance of money. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hehe, it's really ironic you mention this actually. Considering the Constitution, which to you is legitimate, was created in much the same fashion - as a secret meeting held by wealthy merchants to discuss a radical reconstruction of government not authorized by the Articles of Confederation or the government that existed under them. They then fashioned the Constitution in such a way as to make trade the most profitable, to the detriment of poor farmers and the like. The Constitution is the epitome of a self-serving institution created to maximize profit. The Constitution was created illegally. The Federal Reserve was not. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Uh no... The Constitution was created by delegates of the 13 colonies who all came from various backgrounds. Unlike the Fed bankers who all did basically the same thing. The spirit of the constitution is the same spirit that I honor, which was "no taxation without representation". It was a revolution supported by the populace and fought for by patriots. This Fed Act was planned by a select few gentlemen and rammed forward in secrecy. Hardly could you call this a popular grass roots revolution. The Constitution is the best thing to happen to man in thousands of years of tyranny, and it is the benefit of all, not a select few. I really wonder why you think the Constitution is for a select few??? |
On the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson remarked, "It is really an assembly of demi-gods.�
Hardly paints a picture of the layman.
well, im certainly no economist so take that argument up with occrider. i for one have never ever heard the reserve bank referred to as a private, profit-making institution.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider My �higher than thou attitude� comes from trying to argue with someone who has retarded notions that the Fed is a private institution, makes money off of taxpayers by charging interest, and thinks that we can survive in a world economy without a central bank and with a gold/silver standard despite the realities of economics. |
| quote: |
But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton The Constitution is the best thing to happen to man in thousands of years of tyranny, and it is the benefit of all, not a select few. I really wonder why you think the Constitution is for a select few??? |
| quote: |
| ...The reason and spirit of a law are to be understood only by an inquiry into the circumstances of its enactment. The underlying purposes of the Constitution, therefore, are to be revealed only by a study of the conditions and events which led to formation and adoption. At the outset it must be remembered that there were two great parties at the time of the adoption of the Constitution -- one laying emphasis on strength and efficiency in government and the other on its popular aspects. Quite naturally the men who led in stirring up the revolt against Great Britain and in keeping the fighting temper of the Revolutionaries at the proper heat were the boldest and most radical thinkers -- men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. They were not, generally speaking, men of large property interests or of much practical business experience. In a time of disorder, they could consistently lay more stress upon personal liberty than upon social control; and they pushed to the extreme limits those doctrines of individual rights which had been evolved in England during the struggles of the small landed proprietors and commercial classes against royal prerogative, and which corresponded to the economic conditions prevailing in America at the close of the eighteenth century. They associated strong government with monarchy, and came to believe that the best political system was one which governed least. A majority of the radicals viewed all government, especially if highly centralized, as a species of evil, tolerable only because necessary and always to be kept down to an irreducible minimum by a jealous vigilance. Jefferson put the doctrine in concrete form when he declared that he preferred newspapers without government to government without newspapers. The Declaration of Independence, the first state Constitutions, and the Articles of Confederation bore the impress of this philosophy. In their anxiety to defend the individual against all federal interference and to preserve to the states a large sphere of local autonomy, these Revolutionists had set up a system too weak to accomplish the accepted objects of government; namely, national defense, the protection of property, and the advancement of commerce. They were not unaware of the character of their handiwork, but they believed with Jefferson that "man was a rational animal endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice and that he could be restrained from wrong and protected in right by moderate powers confided to persons of his own choice." Occasional riots and disorders, they held, were preferable to too much government. The new American political system based on these doctrines had scarcely gone into effect before it began to incur opposition from many sources. The close of the Revolutionary struggle removed the prime cause for radical agitation and brought a new group of thinkers into prominence. When independence had been gained, the practical work to be done was the maintenance of social order, the payment of the public debt, the provision of a sound financial system, and the establishment of conditions favorable to the development of the economic resources of the new country. The men who were principally concerned in this work of peaceful enterprise were not the philosophers, but men of business and property and the holders of public securities. For the most part, they had had no quarrel with the system of class rule and the strong centralization of government which had existed in England. It was on the question of policy, not of governmental structure, that they had broken with the British authorities. By no means all of them, in fact, had even resisted the policy of the mother country, for within the ranks of the conservatives were large numbers of Loyalists who had remained in America, and, as was to have been expected, cherished a bitter feeling against the Revolutionists, especially the radical section which had been boldest in denouncing the English system root and branch. In other words, after the heat and excitement of the War of Independence were over and the new government, state and national, was tested by the ordinary experiences of traders, financiers, and manufacturers, it was found inadequate, and these groups accordingly grew more and more determined to reconstruct the political system in such a fashion as to make it subserve their permanent interests. Under the state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation established during the Revolution, every powerful economic class in the nation suffered either immediate losses or from impediments placed in the way of the development of their enterprises. The holders of the securities of the [government established by the Articles of Confederation] did not receive the interest on their loans. Those who owned Western lands or looked with longing eyes upon the rich opportunities for speculation there chaffed at the weakness of the government and its delays in establishing order on the frontiers. Traders and commercial men found their plans for commerce on a national scale impeded by local interference with interstate commerce. The currency of the states and the nation was hopelessly muddled. Creditors everywhere were angry about the depreciated paper money which the agrarians had made and were attempting to force upon those from whom they had borrowed specie. In short, it was a war between business and populism. Under the Articles of Confederation, populism had a free hand, for majorities in the state legislatures were omnipotent. Anyone who reads the economic history of the time will see why the solid conservative interests of the country were weary of talk about the "rights of the people" and bent upon establishing firm guarantees for the rights of property. The Congress of the Confederation was not long in discovering the true character of the futile authority which the Articles had conferred upon it. The necessity for new sources of revenue became apparent even while the struggle for independence was yet undecided, and, in 1871, Congress carried a resolution to the effect that it should be authorized to lay a duty of five percent on certain goods. This moderate proposition was defeated because Rhode Island rejected it on the grounds that "she regarded it the most precious jewel of sovereignty that no state shall be called upon to open its purse but by the authority of the state and by her own officers." Two years later, Congress prepared another amendment to the Articles providing for certain import duties, the receipts from which, collected by state officers, were to be applied to the payment of the public debt; but three years after the introduction of the measure, four states, including New York, still held out against its ratification, and the project was allowed to drop. At last, in 1786, Congress in a resolution declared that the requisitions for the last eight years had been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive that a reliance on them in the future would be no less dishonorable to the understandings of those who entertained it than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union. Congress, thereupon, solemnly added that it had become its duty "to declare most explicitly that the crisis had arrived when the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the federal government was instituted, must decide whether they will support their rank as a nation by maintaining the public faith at home and abroad, or rather for the want of a timely exertion in establishing a general review and thereby giving strength to the Confederacy, they will hazard not only the existence of the Union but those great and invaluable privileges for which they have so arduously and so honorably contended." In fact, the Articles of Confederation had hardly gone into effect before the leading citizens also began to feel that the powers of Congress were wholly inadequate. In 1780, even before their adoption, Alexander Hamilton proposed a general convention to frame a new constitution, and from that time forward he labored with remarkable zeal and wisdom to extend and popularize the idea of a strong national government. Two years later, the Assembly of the State of New York recommended a convention to revise the Articles and increase the power of the Congress. In 1783, Washington, in a circular letter to the governors, urged that it was indispensable to the happiness of the individual states that there should be lodged somewhere a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the confederation. Shortly afterward (1785), Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, suggested to his state legislature the advisability of calling a national assembly to settle upon and define the powers of Congress; and the legislature resolved that the government under the Articles of Confederation was inadequate and should be reformed; but the resolution was never laid before Congress. In January, 1786, Virginia invited all the other states to send delegates to a convention at Annapolis to consider the question of duties on imports and the commerce in general. When this convention assembled in 1786, delegates from only five states were present, and they were disheartened at the limitations on their powers and the lack of interest the other states had shown in the project. With characteristic foresight, however, Alexander Hamilton seized the occasion to secure the adoption of a recommendation advising the states to choose representatives for another convention to meet in Philadelphia the following year "to consider the Articles of Confederation and to propose such changes therein as might render them adequate to the exigencies of the union." This recommendation was cautiously worded, for Hamilton did not want to raise any unnecessary alarm. He doubtless believed that a complete revolution in the old system was desirable, but he knew that, in the existing state of popular temper, it was not expedient to announce his complete program. Accordingly, no general reconstruction of the political system was suggested; the Articles of Confederation were merely to be "revised"; and the amendments were to be approved by the state legislatures as provided by that instrument. The proposal of the Annapolis convention was transmitted to the state legislatures and laid before Congress. Congress thereupon resolved in February, 1787, that a convention should be held for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to itself and the legislatures of the several states such alterations and provisions as would when agreed to by Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union. In pursuance of this call, delegates to the new convention were chosen by the legislatures of the states or by the governors in conformity to authority conferred by the legislative assemblies. The delegates were given instructions of a general nature by their respective states, none of which, apparently, contemplated any very far-reaching changes. In fact, almost all of them expressly limited their representative to a mere revision of the Articles of Confederation. For example, Connecticut authorized her delegates to represent and confer for the purpose mentioned in the resolution of Congress and to discuss such measures "agreeable to the general principles of Republican government" as they should think proper to render the Union adequate. Delaware, however, went so far as to provide that none of the proposed alterations should extend to the fifth part of the Articles of Confederation guaranteeing that each state should be entitled to one vote. It was a truly remarkable assembly of men that gathered in Philadelphia on May 17, 1787, to undertake the work of reconstructing the American system of government. It is not merely patriotic pride that compels one to assert that never in the history of assemblies has there been a convention of men richer in political experience and practical knowledge, or endowed with a profounder insight into the springs of human action and the intimate essence of government. It is indeed an astounding fact that at one time so many men skilled in statecraft could be found on the very frontiers of civilization among a population numbering about four million whites. It is no less a cause for admiration that their instrument of government should have survived the trials and crises of a century that saw the wreck of more than a score of paper constitutions.[] All the members had had a practical training in politics. Washington, as commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary forces, had learned well the lessons and problems of war, and mastered successfully the no less difficult problems of administration. The two Morrises had distinguished themselves in grappling with financial questions as trying and perplexing as any which statesmen had ever been compelled to face. Seven of the delegates had gained political wisdom as governors of their native states; and no less than twenty-eight had served in Congress, either during the Revolution or under the Articles of Confederation. These were men trained in the law, versed in finance, skilled in administration, and learned in the political philosophy of their own and earlier times. Moreover, they were men destined to continue public service under the government which they had met to construct -- Presidents, Vice-Presidents, heads of departments, Justices of the Supreme Court were in that imposing body. ... The makers of the Constitution represented the solid, conservative, commercial and financial interests of the country -- not the interests which denounced and proscribed judges in Rhode Island, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and stoned their houses in New York. The conservative interests, made desperate by the imbecilities of the Confederation and harried by state legislatures, roused themselves from the lethargy, drew together in a mighty effort to establish a government that would be strong enough to pay the national debt, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, provide for national defense, prevent fluctuations in the currency created by paper emissions, and control the propensities of legislative majorities to attack private rights...The radicals, however, like Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Samuel Adams, were conspicuous by their absence from the Convention. The Convention was convened to frame a government that would meet the practical issues that had arisen under the Articles of Confederation. The objections they entertained to direct popular government, and they were undoubtedly many, were based upon their experience with popular assemblies during the immediately preceding years. With many of the plain lessons of history before them, they naturally feared that the rights and privileges of the minority would be insecure if the principle of majority rule was definitely adopted and provisions made for its exercise. Furthermore, it will be remembered that up to that time the right of all men, as men, to share in the government had never been recognized in practice. Everywhere in Europe the government was in the hands of a ruling monarch or at best a ruling class; everywhere the mass of the people had been regarded principally as an arms-bearing and tax-paying multitude, uneducated, and with little hope or capacity for advancement. Two years were to elapse after the meeting of the grave assembly at Philadelphia before the transformation of the Estates General into the National Convention in France opened the floodgates of revolutionary ideas on human rights before whose rising tide old landmarks of government are still being submerged. It is small wonder, therefore, that, under the circumstances, many members of that august body held popular government in slight esteem and took the people into consideration only as far as it was imperative "to inspire them with the necessary confidence," as Mr. Gerry [one of the framers of the Constitution] frankly put it. Indeed, every page of the laconic record of the proceedings of the convention, preserved to posterity by Mr. Madison, shows conclusively that the members of that assembly were not seeking to realize any fine notions about democracy and equality, but were striving with all the resources of political wisdom at their command to set up a system of government that would be stable and efficient, safeguarded on the one hand against the possibilities of despotism and on the other against the onslaught of majorities. In the mind of Mr. Gerry, the evils they had experienced flowed "from the excess of democracy," and he confessed that while he was still republican, he "had been taught by experience the danger of the levelling spirit." Mr. Randolph, in offering to the consideration of the convention his plan of government, observed "that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that, in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought for against this tendency of our governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose." Mr. Hamilton, in advocating a life term for Senators, urged that "all communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right." Governor Morris wanted to check the "precipitancy, changeableness, and excess" of the representatives of the people by the ability and virtue of men" of great and established property -- aristocracy; men who from pride will support consistency and permanency...Such an aristocratic body will keep down the turbulence of democracy." While these extreme doctrines were somewhat counterbalanced by the democratic principles of Mr. Wilson, who urged that "the government ought to possess, not only first, the force, but second, the mind or sense of the people at large," Madison doubtless summed up in a brief sentence the general opinion of the convention when he said that to secure private rights against minority factions, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, was the great object to which their inquiries had been directed. They were anxious above everything else to safeguard the rights of private property against any leveling tendencies on the part of the propertyless masses. Governor Morris, in speaking on the problem of apportioning representatives, correctly stated the sound historical fact when he declared: "Life and liberty were generally said to be of more value than property. An accurate view of the matter, nevertheless, would prove that property was the main object of society...If property, then was the main object of government, certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the government." Mr. King also agreed that "property was the primary object of society," and Mr. Madison warned the convention that in framing a system which they wished to last for ages they must not lose sight of the changes which the ages would produce in the forms and distribution of property. In advocating a long term in order to give independence and firmness to the Senate, he described these impending changes: "An increase in the population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equitable distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a levelling spirit, as we have understood have sufficiently appeared, in a certain quarter, to give notice of the future danger." And again, in support of the argument for a property qualification on voters, Madison urged: "In future times, a great majority of the people will not only be without land, but without any other sort of property. These will either combine, under the influence of their common situation, -- in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands, -- or, what is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which case there will be equal danger on another side." Various projects for setting up class rule by the establishment of property qualifications for voters and officers were advanced in the convention, but they were defeated.... The absence of such property qualifications is certainly not due to any belief in Jefferson's free and equal doctrine. It is due rather to the fact that the members of the convention could not agree on the nature and amount of the qualifications. Naturally, a landed qualification was suggested, but for obvious reasons it was rejected. Although it was satisfactory to the landed gentry of the South, it did not suit the financial, commercial, and manufacturing gentry of the North. If it was high, the latter would be excluded; if it was low, it would let in the populistic farmers who had already made so much trouble in the state legislatures with paper-money schemes and other devices for "relieving agriculture." One of the chief reasons for calling the convention and framing the Constitution was to promote commerce and industry and to protect personal property against the depredations of Jefferson's noble freeholders. On the other hand, a personal property qualification, high enough to please merchant princes like Robert Morris or Nathaniel Gorham would shut out Southern planters. Again, an alternative of land or personal property, high enough to afford safeguards to large interests, would doubtless bring about the rejection of the whole Constitution by the troublemaking farmers who had to pass upon the question of ratification. Nevertheless, by the system of checks and balances placed in the government, the convention safeguarded the interests of property against attacks by majorities. The House of Representatives, Mr. Hamilton pointed out, "was so formed as to render it particularly the guardian of the poorer orders of citizens," while the Senate was to preserve the rights of property and the interests of the minority against the demands of the majority. In the tenth number of The Federalist, Mr. Madison argued in a philosophic vein in support of the proposition that it was necessary to base the political system on the actual conditions of "natural inequality." Uniformity of interests throughout the state, he contended, was impossible on account of the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originated; the protection of these faculties was the first object of government; from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately resulted; from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensued a division of society into different interests and parties; the unequal distribution of wealth inevitably led to a clash of interests in which the majority was liable to carry out its policies at the expense of the minority; hence, he added, in concluding this splendid piece of logic, "the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression"; and in his opinion, it was the great merit of the newly framed Constitution that it secured the rights of the minority against "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." This very system of checks and balances, which is undeniably the essential element of the Constitution, is built upon the doctrine that the popular branch of the government cannot be allowed full sway, and least of all in the enactment of laws touching the rights of property. The exclusion of the direct popular vote in the election of the President; the creation, again by indirect election, of a Senate which the framers hoped would represent the wealth and conservative interests of the country, and the establishment of an independent judiciary appointed by the President with the concurrence of the Senate -- all these devices bear witness to the fact that the underlying purpose of the Constitution was not the establishment of popular government by means of parliamentary majorities. Page after page of The Federalist is directed to that portion of the electorate which was disgusted with the "mutability of public councils." Writing on the presidential veto, Hamilton says: "The propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights and absorb the powers of other departments has already been suggested and repeated....It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws included the power of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws which form the greater blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones." When the framers of the Constitution had completed the remarkable instrument which was to establish a national government capable of discharging effectively certain great functions and checking the propensities of popular legislatures to attack the rights of private property, a formidable task remained before them -- the task of securing the adoption of the new frame of government by states torn with popular dissentions. They knew very well that the state legislatures which had been so negligent in paying their quotas [of money] under the Articles of Confederation and which had been so jealous of their rights, would probably stick at ratifying such a national instrument of government. Accordingly, they cast aside that clause in the Articles requiring amendments to be ratified by the legislatures of all of the states; and advised that the new Constitution should be ratified by conventions in the several states composed of delegates chosen by the voters. It was largely because the framers of the Constitution knew the temper and class bias of the state legislatures that they arranged that the new Constitution should be ratified by conventions. They furthermore declared -- and this is an fundamental matter -- that when the conventions of nine states had ratified the Constitution the new government should go into effect so far as those states were concerned. The chief reason for resorting to ratifications by conventions is laid down by Hamilton in Federalist 22: "It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system that it never had a ratification by the people. Resting on no better foundation that the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a state, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original foundation of all legitimate authority." Of course, the convention did not resort to the revolutionary policy of transmitting the Constitution directly to the conventions of the several states. It merely laid the finished instrument before the Confederate Congress with the suggestion that it should be submitted to "a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for them assent and ratification; and each convention assenting thereto and ratifying the same should give notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled." The convention went on to suggest that when nine states had ratified the Constitution, the Confederate Congress should extinguish itself by making provisions for the elections necessary to put the new government into effect.... After the new Constitution was published and transmitted to the states, there began a long and bitter fight over ratification. A veritable flood of pamphlet literature descended upon the country, and a collection of these pamphlets by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, brought together under the title of The Federalist -- though clearly a piece of campaign literature -- has remained a permanent part of the contemporary sources on the Constitution and has been regarded by many lawyers as a commentary second in value only to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Within a year the champions of the new government found themselves victorious, for on June 21, 1788, the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified the Constitution, and accordingly the new government might go into effect as between the agreeing states. Within a few weeks, the nationalist party in Virginia and New York succeeded in winning these two states, and in spite of the fact that North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, Congress determined to put the instrument into effect in accordance with the recommendations of the convention. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, who do you think owns the federal reserve btw?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton International bankers and their shareholders. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ive already posted an explanation of what these "shareholders" are. And theyre not a bunch of secret cult anonymous members. It receives oversight from congress (or over here the house and/or senate). It is not a privately owned and operated company in the way you are trying to make out. But again, im no economist so take that argument to occrider because I am unable to do it justice. In all seriousness, id love to see how an ecomomy is meant to function without a central bank! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Since you don't believe me, I'll let a Constitutional scholar, rather than Wikipedia, make the argument for me. The following from Charles Beard: Excerpted from Charles Beard's "Framing the Constitution," in Peter Woll, ed., American Government: Readings and Cases, 11th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993) |
| quote: |
| An appeal to authority also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument from modesty) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself, said it), is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge. Example of appeals to authority: Referencing scientific research published in a peer reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so" |
| quote: |
Appeal to Misleading Authority
Type: Genetic Fallacy Form: Authority A believes that P is true. Therefore, P is true. #3 The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy. For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity. There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and a similar version for attorneys: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Why should these be true if the doctor or lawyer is an expert on medicine or the law? The answer is that we are all biased in our own causes. A physician who tries to diagnose his own illness is more likely to make a mistake out of wishful thinking, or out of fear, than another physician would be. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html |
| quote: |
| Charles Austin Beard (November 27, 1874 � September 1, 1948) is widely regarded, along with Frederick Jackson Turner, as one of the two most influential American historians of the early 20th century. While Beard published hundreds of monographs, textbooks and interpretive studies in both history and political science, he is most widely known for his radical re-evaluation of the Founding Fathers of the United States, whom he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles. |
| quote: |
| "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition." - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p. 527 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Yes, keep following that herd. No, that's not a cliff they're going over, it's more like a big, fun, basejumping platform! Wooo hooo! Oh no, don't worry about not having a parachute yet because we promise that we'll give it to you before you get to the bottom. What, don't you trust us? You saw how ready and eager we were to help everyone in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, didn't you? What a freaking joke. |
I wish men like Louis T. McFadden were still alive!!!
| quote: |
Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932: Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies, which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I wish men like Louis T. McFadden were still alive!!! |
| quote: |
| McFadden was known as openly antisemitic. He claimed that Jews controlled the American economy, and that the United States had to choose between "God and the money changers who have unlawfully taken our gold and lawful money into their possession."[1] McFadden also blamed Jews for president Roosevelt's decision to abandon the gold standard, and claimed that "in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money."[2] McFadden is also remembered for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which he claimed was created and operated by European banking interests who conspired to economically control the United States. On June 10, 1932, McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives, in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. McFadden also claimed that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution through the Federal Reserve banks and the European central banks with which it cooperated. In 1932, he moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover, and also introduced a resolution bringing conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The impeachment resolution was defeated by the overwhelming vote of 361 to 8; it thus became a big vote of confidence to President Hoover from the House.[3] In 1933, he introduced House Resolution No. 158, Articles of impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks. |
Re: propagandaaaaaaaa
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Obtain Disapproval: This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position. |
| quote: |
| "This campaign against the American people - against traditional American culture and values - is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interest comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left. Among this group we find the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the money center banks and multinational corporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, and the large tax-exempt foundations." "Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a new world order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relation, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called new world order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles...." "The psychological campaign that I am describing, as I have said, is the work of groups within the Eastern establishment, that amorphous amalgam of wealth and social connections whose power resides in its control over our financial system and over a large portion of our industrial sector. The principal instrument of this control over the American economy and money is the Federal Reserve System. The policies of the industrial sectors, primarily the multinational corporations, are influenced by the money centers through debt financing and through the large blocks of stock controlled by the trust departments of the money center banks. Anyone familiar with American history, and particularly American economic history, cannot fail to notice the control over the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency which Wall Street seems to exercise.... The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order. The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "one-world" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, the phrase "one-world" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its fundamental tenets." "Mr. President, in the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil, and certainly not a component of policy. In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be orientatef to bringing this one-world design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American Systems as its centerpiece - into being.....All that matters to this club is the maximization of profits resulting from the practice of what can be described as finance capitalism, a system which rests upon the twin pillars of debt and monopoly. This isn't real capitalism. It is the road to economic concentration and to political slavery." - Senator Jesse Helms December 15, 1987 (From his speach before the Senate) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo yeah, he'd be in a mental institution...or a University professor |
"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
- President Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William F. Elkins on November 21, 1864
(speaking about the European financiers)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Does that instantly mean that he had to have been wrong about the Federal Reserve? I don't see how that correlates? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i meant mental institution or uni-professor as more of a joke, but youre right, it doesn't correlate. he doesn't correlate. he was a flaming anti-semite that alledged their [the Joos] taking over of the US monetary system, but at the same time blamed European banks executing economic hegemony when clearly the biggest banks in Europe (France, UK, Swiss) were not controled by the Joos. i don't think the Joos controlled any bank at that time. the guy was a nut. but go ahead, he's your demigod. |
| quote: |
McFADDEN, Louis Thomas, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in Granville Center, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa., July 25, 1876; attended the public schools; was graduated from Warner�s Commercial College, Elmira, N.Y.; entered the employ of the First National Bank, Canton, Pa., in 1892; in 1899 was elected cashier, and became its president on January 11, 1916, serving until 1925; served as treasurer of the Pennsylvania Bankers� Association in 1906 and 1907 and as president in 1914 and 1915; appointed in 1914 by the agricultural societies of the State of Pennsylvania as a trustee of Pennsylvania State College; elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fourth and to the nine succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1915-January 3, 1935); chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency (Sixty-sixth through Seventy-first Congresses); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1934 to the Seventy-fourth Congress and for nomination in 1936 to the Seventy-fifth Congress; died October 1, 1936, while on a visit in New York City; interment in East Canton Cemetery, Canton, Pa. http://bioguide.congress.gov/script...l?index=M000434 |
| quote: |
| Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932: Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies, which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X That's complete demagoguery. Do you ever NOT try to twist things around, Mr. echo of propaganda? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.