-54 votes

The End the Fed Deception

When Ron Paul stands in front of his cheering supporters as they chant “End the Fed,” “End the Fed,” “End the Fed”…. There are two meanings that are being projected and two interpretations that are simultaneously set in motion from that chant:

The first meaning and interpretation comes from Ron Paul supporters. A large number of Ron Paul supporters who chant “End the Fed” didn’t learn about the Fed through Ron Paul, they learned about the Fed from online documentaries exposing the true nature of the Fed… that it’s a private central bank owned by private banking families out of London and Wall St that are decedents from the original goldsmiths that are hell-bent on establishing their New World Order through the control of the world’s money systems.

The second meaning and interpretation of “End the Fed” comes from Ron Paul, the owners of the Federal Reserve and those in the mainstream public. They mean it and interpret it as “End the Fed” meaning, ending the big federal government.

When Ron Paul goes on the mainstream networks he says either “End the Fed” or more often “curtail the Fed” within the same context as “ending or reducing big Federal government, or the Federal government shouldn’t be running the economy. Allow the “free market” to function and keep the Federal government out of the economy. Well the mainstream viewers are interpreting that to mean that the Federal Reserve is a part of the Federal government… when RP says “End the Fed”.

This is the exact perception that the owners of the Fed want the general public to have, that it’s the government who owns the Fed and the Fed is part of the government and the Fed has nothing to do with “running the economy” and it’s the government making the Fed print all this money, and not for the private owners of the Fed and their banks, but for the “big government.”

The deceptive solution offered to solve this deceptive problem is to give more power to the “free market” and take more power away from “big government.”

This is deceptively moving the American people towards a global financial system controlled by world government. The ”free market” does not mean the “free USA market”… the “free market” means the “free GLOBAL market.” And the ones who are controlling the “free GLOBAL market” are the same ones who control the US domestic market by controlling the money and interest rates… they are the private owners of the Federal Reserve.

With a less powerful US government unable to have any say in the affairs of the “free GLOBAL market”, lest they interfere with the natural “laws” and “principles” that naturally regulate the market for the benefit of the majority and not the few (another deception), it will be much easier for the USA and its people to be cleverly merged into a new global “free market” where all world “governments” are to keep their paws off and allow the natural “laws” and “principles” to regulate the "free market" global economy for the benefit of the majority under the stewardship of private interests (owners of the Federal Reserve). To assist this global “free market” they’ll need “sound money”… money the world can trust…. money that’s partially back by “value”

One expedient way to deceive the American people, and all the nations of the world, into a global “free market” is to trick them into thinking that they still have their currencies and that their currencies are “competing” on the free world currency market where in actual practice all currencies will be the same because they’ll be backed by the same amount of commodity and they’ll all bear the same interest rate as determined by the true owners of the new currency(ies) who will be the current owners of the Fed.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I also forgot to make this clear…

Abolishing the Fed and liquidating its assets does not mean liquidating the $17 trillion debt along with the $450 billion annual interest payments the American people will still be on the hook for. The US Treasury will simply continue to handle the servicing of this debt (as Wayne Paul said, managing the bankruptcy) and notes will continue being printed out of “thin air” to service this debt with the $450 billion annual interest payments… provided the interest rate stays where it is right now… near zero.

Where does it say ending the Fed will end the $17 trillion debt…. which is equivalent to 322,000 tons of gold… or over 10 times the world gold holdings at 30,807 tons? So just through the US debt alone (not including the other nations who are in debt to them) the international bankers already own 10 times more than the world gold holdings. Just the annual $450 billion in interest payments are equivalent to 8522.72 tonnes of gold (at $1650 per ounce). Estimated current gold reserves of the US are at 8,133.5 tonnes… that’s a short fall of 389.22 tons on one years interest obligation alone. (Libya had an estimated 140 tons of gold before it got looted by NATO).

Therefore since there is no way to pay this debt in gold... notes will have to continue to be printed and those notes will still be debt-based private money. Of course the international bankers could make a deal with all nations saying their debts could be reduced if they all became part of a basket of world currencies back by the same amount of gold… a prelude to a global gold-backed currency. The master/slave relationship America has with the private bankers will not end with the abolishment of the Fed.

World government is coming… it’s been granted to be so it will be and there’s nothing anyone can do about it so relax and enjoy the ride. The sooner it gets here the sooner it will end.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

Republicae's picture

Not worth a valid comment!

Not worth a valid comment!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Ron Paul does not want to remove the control of money

Ron Paul does not want to remove the control of money out of the hands of the international bankers because when Ron Paul says he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve he actually wants it to be taken over by the US Treasury (H.R.2755 - Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act). Read the portions of the Act under LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS and ASSUMPTIONS OF LIABILITIES. And Denis Kucinich says the same thing that the Fed should be put under the US Treasury.

Ron Paul’s brother Wayne says that the private Fed ordered the US Treasury to manage the US bankruptcy starting in 1933. By putting the Federal Reserve under the US Treasury what they're really doing is privatizing the US Treasury by assimilating it with the Federal Reserve and changing the name of the Fed to “The US Treasury.” The US Treasury will become a de facto private central bank under the guise of being a part of the US government... in essence reducing the size of government as Ron Paul likes to champion.

Remember former US Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, under orders from the owners of the Fed threatened congress with martial law if they didn't pass the TARP bill ($750 billion to bailout Wall St)? So who really runs the US Treasury? Ron Paul will not end the Fed he will hide it within the US Treasury. This is a deception

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency."
Ron Paul

Of course we know he means a single gold-backed world currency with no government interference. The international bankers are in complete agreement with this type of global "free market."

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

Republicae's picture

DrKrbyLuv...is that you?

DrKrbyLuv...is that you? You really are a very confused person aren't you? Did you even read that piece by Dr. Paul? Apparently not, for I cannot believe that someone could read something and then, through some twisted version of reality, come up with the utter crap you do! You simply can't have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever if you can read that piece and come up with the rotten tripe you do! It is simply an impossibility to a normal person to do that. There is deception to be sure, but it is found between your two ears.

Did you read HR 2577? Now, I still cannot imagine just how you arrived at the conclusions you did, but one thing is certain, you certainly do not understand the Bill nor did you understand the piece by Dr. Paul entitled The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money! But none of that surprises me, considered what you have written before. The entire system, according to the Bill, will be abolished, it will not be simply the take over of the FED by the Treasury, but the Treasury will serve as a transitional agency of the government until the system is completely abolished, the assets of the FED liquidated. How did you think the FED was to end, just close the doors, that's not the way it could happen, sorry to bust your simpleton bubble.

A BILL
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED.
(a) In General- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.

(b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.

(c) Disposition of Affairs-

(1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD- During the 1-year period referred to in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System--

(A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks--

(i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and

(ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection; and

(B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks.

(2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury.

(B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.

(3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied.

(d) Report- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

So much disinfo, you'd think it's a "Divide & Conquer" Op

Of course he means the Federal Reserve. Yeah, he wants small Government (same thing Republicans USED to want), and to reign in government spending ... but not to END the Federal Government, silly.

And to Republicae:
No one can show you who owns the PRIVATELY held stock of the Federal Reserve .. Or any of the Central Banks. Why? Because it was written in the Federal Reserve Act that the Fed Board is "empowered to adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations governing the transfer of said stock."

Did you even think there's a reason you cannot find their actual names written down somewhere?
You may have read Griffin, but have you read the Act?
Look it up:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_Kfkporhu5gJ:www....

We can surmise "who owns the Fed" from the document that started it all.
Granted, the Act states any outstanding stock is to revert to the US Treasury. But, there is no outstanding stock. All of the stock is owned by member banks.
So ... who owns the banks?

Who gets the statutory 6% of the Capital "paid-in" after expenses are met?
The Member Banks.
I'll ask again: Who owns those banks?
According to the Act, only those banks with enough assets ($4,000,000.00) would be considered eligible to be chartered as a member bank when the Fed was created.
So, tell me ..in that year, 1913, four million dollars in assets ....
Who do you think were the only banks in a position to become "Member Banks"?
Gee, maybe the same "cartel" who pushed Wilson to sign the Act during Christmas break?
The very same Big Banks (and Bankers) who tried (twice) and failed with the first Central Banks?
Ya think?

The Act gives them broad and complete control of ALL information regarding shareholders, who the Fed lends money to, who they swap money with, who gets the annual 6% dividend ... And they don't have to tell Congress (or us) a thing.
So, who "owns" the Fed?

Yeah... All those names you cannot find proof of being the sole stockholders ...
That's who owns the Fed.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

“….not to END the Federal Government, silly.”

You’re not understanding my OP. I didn’t say Ron Paul is trying to give the impression that he wants to “END the Federal Government”; I’m saying he’s giving the impression to the mainstream viewer that he wants to end a department of the federal government… being the Federal Reserve. But the Fed is not a department of the federal government… it’s a private central bank that has been sanctioned by the government to counterfeit money. Just because the government sanctioned it doesn’t make it nonetheless private. It’s a government sanctioned private monopoly and accountable to no one.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

Republicae's picture

Yes, I have read the Act and

Yes, I have read the Act and I have read the limited debates on Congress on the passage of the Act. The fact remains, that no where does the Act or within the debates, limited though they may be, where the commonly held conception of ownership of stock relays control over the FED, in fact, if you actually read the Act, the various relationships within the construction of the Act.

However, it appears that you are confused about the definition of Outstanding Stock. The definition of Outstanding Stock, for as long as I can remember, and that is a long, long time, is as follows:

Outstanding Stock: Stock currently held by investors, including restricted shares owned by the company's officers and insiders, as well as those held by the public. Shares that have been repurchased by the company are not considered outstanding stock.

Thus, every single share that is held by member banks is considered outstanding stock and is subject, under Section 7. Division of Earnings, subsection (b) Use of Earnings Transferred to the Treasury, to that provision. The reason you cannot find the commonly propagated names of supposed owners is that those are not owners of shares, the member banks are the owners of the shares of the Federal Reserve.

By the way, you can get a complete list of member banks, i.e. stockholders from the FFIEC [Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council]

Now, the Board of Governors are, under the act, empowered to govern the transfer of stock as expressed under the Act which limits proportional shares to 3% of the member banks capital, despite the proportional shares the member bank, regardless of that proportion only receives one vote and each member is limited to a 6% dividend of the earnings, but that too is limited because of the statute, thus when spread across the number of members holding stock the amounts received by the member banks is not what we could possibly consider huge in banking industry terms, some member banks are paid less than some of the CEOs bonuses each year, depending on the proportion of capital that makes up their 3% shares.

Also, you must remember that the original plan for the Federal Reserve was shot down by Congress, which instead of voting for the passage of the Aldrich plan (which was the Big Banker Plan), they rather chose the Owen plan which contrary to the Aldrich plan, the Owen plan transferred the control of the Board of Governors to the government.

Who owns member banks, well…let’s see I have more than a few stocks in several banks, I’m a stockholder, so are thousands of other Americans, thousands of other people, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. Who owns the banks, well, the stockholders of a given bank.

Now, I have no contention whatsoever with the fact that the great banking powers of the late 1800s and early 1900s were, with several politicians, the impetus of the creation of the FED, nor do I deny that those powers were extremely influential in the crafting of the Federal Reserve Act, but I also know that they did not get all that they had hoped for in the Act or the creation of the FED. Read Rothbard’s The Origin of the Federal Reserve.

Within the original Federal Reserve Act, you will also find the following:

No individual, copartnership, or corporation other than a member bank of its district shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at anytime more than $25,000 par value of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank. Such stock shall be known as public stock and may be transferred on the books of the Federal Reserve Bank by the Chairman of the board of directors of such bank.

Now, concerning the amount of subscribed capital necessary being $4,000,000. That section refers to the Regional Federal Reserve Banks themselves not to the subscribing banks seeking membership.

Actually, the Act does not give a wide latitude to the Board of Governors regarding shareholders and the shareholders are a matter of public record, for they are member banks which, as Chartered, must disclose various relationships regard all business dealings. As you said the Act itself governs the stock issue, and it is pretty plain language, as seen here in the Act Section 5:

The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefore its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefore, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.

Thus, I am not sure what you are getting at, but the regulations under the Act are pretty specific regarding the way stock is issued, how it is managed, what qualifies a bank to become a member and actions to be taken in the event of insolvency of any member bank. Additionally, there are disclosures for the FED, regulated by the SEC and banking regulations, a member bank must disclose its largest stockholders of 5% or more, it should be obvious that the member banks proportional stockholdings in the FED is 3% of their capital assets, thus you can, if you don’t want to look up the information, determine exactly how many shares a given bank holds within the FED by simply calculating it based on their capital assets.

Additionally, this is something to consider when thinking of the power of the banks, especially of those which have become known as "too big to fail", what happens when they fail? The entire system is fraught with risk exposure, especially with some of the largest banks in the U.S. and in Europe. When the dominos begin to fall, with the first one, will come a systematic collapse that will, eventually even threaten the very existence of the "lender of last resort", which despite the commonly held views of people when they speak of the ELITE MEME, this system is collapsing and have been collapsing since prior to 2008. 2008 was simply the first expression of the underlying exposure these big banks and indeed this government is subject to in todays economy.

Thus, I must therefore, ask...what is your point?

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

The truth about Paul

I have watched him many times in news interviews and he readily admits that abolishing the Fed Res is not possible. He wants MAJOR reform within the Fed Res.

That is a fact.

Republicae's picture

Really, have you read his

Really, have you read his Federal Reserve Abolition Act he introduced back in 2002 or 2009? Apparently, he feels that it is possible to abolish the FED, but he also know that it must be done in a way that can be done and that is through pressuring transparency on the FED, instituting reforms that will essentially make it impossible for it to operate in the manner in which it does now. The whole idea behind competing currencies is, in fact, nothing more than a way to abolish the FED.

THE TRUTH BE KNOWN, RON PAUL KNOWS, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE IN D.C. THAT AUDITING THE FED WILL ACTUALLY MEAN AUDITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

The people are not the "free market"

The international bankers are the "free market"

Free Market

The market is just a series of voluntary exchanges between individuals.

When someone sells me something and I buy it, we are both benefiting.

I obviously value what they are selling more than I value the money I am exchanging for it, and they obviously value my money more than the product they sold me, otherwise the transaction wouldn't have taken place.

Government is the antithesis of the Free Market.

It is only because government has the ability to regulate, that banks and large corporations lobby to pass laws beneficial to them.

A Free Market works because of competition, the costumer is king, if a business does not please its customer they will lose that customer to a more competitive business.

Government is the outlet through which monopolies are created and large companies kill competition and subvert the market through the use of regulation.

The people are the free market!

Government and Corporatism/Cronyism are not!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

The Federal Reserve is one of

The Federal Reserve is one of those issues where Ron Paul is completely wrong.

Republicae's picture

Don't stop there, give us

Don't stop there, give us your opinion as to why you think that he is "completely wrong".

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

END THE FED

is the name of Ron Paul's own book. If you read it, you would understand that he means the Federal Reserve Bank.

Only a person who has never read Ron Paul would be taken in by your falsehoods.

Republicae's picture

There is no question about it

There is no question about it JWalsh, he has not read the book, in fact, he has not read any of Dr. Paul's writings on Trade either, that too is evident from his comments on the subject and his accusations against Dr. Paul.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Ah, yes.

Another well written thread touching on a subject worthy of thought by purposing a sound theory, down voted by the knee jerkers that seem to overpopulate the DP.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

Republicae's picture

Well, now...isn't that sweet!

Well, now...isn't that sweet!

Actually, most of the down votes are due to the fact that people have read Soleprobes other postings and see him/her for exactly what he/her is....just take a good look at the rest of his comments, it's not hard to figure out. I also doubt, despite your claim, that the negative reaction to Soleprobe was as simple as a knee-jerk reaction, there seems to be plenty of thought behind the down votes, just read the comments.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Fair enough.

Noted. Will be more thoughtful in the future and read ALL the comments. Thanks for the check.

A little raw after posting a piece of satire that I thought others would enjoy and having the first comment in the thread be some jerk who didn't like it and felt i needed to know. He proceeded to get me four down votes right out of the gate and the post nearly fell into the "unread abyss". I know, I know, get over it.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

Simple Principles first

If Ron Paul runs things here in American and he stops enforcing legal tender laws (stops protecting or subsidizing the monopoly), then The FED will be forced out of business.

It is that simple in principle.

Stop destroying competition and a monopoly can't survive.

That is demonstrably true.

How about a hypothetical example?

Utah, and about 11 other States may begin inventing, producing, and maintaining competitive Legal Monies, and they may do so with or without Ron Paul taking over The Federal (which is actually national now, not Federal, but Ron Paul can put the Republic back into the Federal part of the Republic) regime.

What happens to The FED, with their counterfeit money product, when anyone has 11 choices within the Republic to choose from when anyone wants to save some of their hard earned earnings?

Only those who have invested in the power of legal monopoly, or legalized counterfeiting, will still choose The FED products, everyone else will dump that "dollar", trying to sell everything they have that is denominated in FED dollars, so as to secure their earnings in the competitive forms.

Run that scenario around awhile before jerking your knees - please.

Joe

While your thoughts

are not popular, I thank you for a different perspective and it would be wise for everyone to be vigilante, seeing how easy the tea-party was usurped.

I just finished reading an old book called "The Story of Mankind" and unfortunately history keeps repeating itself.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

There is wisdom in this article

Soleprobe is on to something. REALLY think about it. Why the sudden push for gold-backed SDRs at the last G20? Why the ubiquitous presence of those annoying cash-for-gold sign wavers? Why be a gold-bug when you know that the government doesn't own much of it anymore?

Why be a Gold-bug?

"Why be a gold-bug when you know that the government doesn't own much of it anymore?"

Why not?

If the Federal Government doesn't own anymore Gold, then what do they own? Nothing but Tax slaves?

I think there's many reasons to own Gold. One such reason is to take your country back. If the Government doesn't own any Gold, then pretty soon they'll be facing a problem. They'll be forced to recognize that that don't have anything except worthless pieces of paper and computer digits, and everybody else owns the real thing, or at least those that own Gold. Which I hope is a vast majority of Americans. I look at it like, any American that considers themselves to be responsible should own real money. Not corrupt irresponsible Government money that is based upon, nothing. Nothing but computer digits produced by pressing 'Enter' on a keyboard, or a $100 bill that costs 4 cents to make, by bankers. But money that represents something that took some real actual labor to produce. If you don't have some money that represents some real actual labor, then what do you have? Do you have any money that represents responsibility that came from the fruits of labor?

Money is not something just because the Government says it is. It's something that is determined in the marketplace by people, not by the Government.

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

Uhh, no "soleprobe" YOU are misinformed

Only Sarah Palin thinks "The Fed" means the Federal Government. Intelligent people know it means The Federal Reserve and we're well aware that IT owns the Government, not the other way around. That is precisely what people are learning from this movement.

The only thing that is really NATURAL in the monetary system is GOLD. It comes out of the Earth = Natural, Not out of an InkJet Printer = The FED. You are expressing OLD ways of thinking still trapped in terms of Currencies needing to compete instead of cooperate to maintain the world economic balance.

Once backed by Gold, no one will be able to inflate currencies like The FED does. Do you really think people who are awake will allow any kind of Global monetary control by ANY agency like the IMF?? You think we don't see that the IMF is a major part of this One-world-Banking agenda?? HAHAHA Oh, Please!

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Republicae's picture

You certainly find it easy to

You certainly find it easy to make assumptions, of course that is just about all you Greenback Hacks can do since you can never explain anything that remotely approaches reality in your commentaries. Heck, all you have is fake quotes to rely upon, twisted history and misinformation. When you are asked direct questions regarding the actual mechanics of what you propose you divert attention away from the subject of those questions and start railing about this or that.

I have yet, in the last 60 years, found a single person who supported the position that the FED is a private bank owned by private banking families our of London who was able to provide even a smidgeon of actual proof to back up their claims. You have your MEME and you stick to it like glue despite any evidence to the contrary and in fact, despite, in most cases, logic or even common sense.

You readily make claims but can’t support those claims. You rely upon a history that does not exist and various questionable assertions you then assume are facts, thus your doctrine of faith is based on such assumptions and since you are so ardent in your cultist belief system you call anyone who questions you heretics or worse.

It is simple: SHOW US THE ABSOLUTE UNDISPUTABLE PROOF YOU HAVE. Like I said, I have yet to find a single individual who can provide such proof and I’ve met a lot of your types.

Additionally, it appears, once again that you are making assumptions when you describe these meanings of “End the FED”, and ascribe such meanings to others when it should be obvious to any intelligent person that such attempts of ascription as to what they are thinking, what they mean when they say a phrase is a complete waste of energy since there is simply no way for you to know such things and, once again, you only are making assumptions.

That’s all you Greenbackers do, is make assumptions, form arguments around those assumptions and honestly, I’ve never met a single Greenbacker who I could place any degree of trust in or confidence about their veracity due to the fact that they always seem to use deceptive tactics to prove their positions.

You have apparently been so indoctrinated with your Greenbacker dogma that you can’t even see the completely ridiculous logic you are using when making your case.

How do you know the exact perception of your imaginary “owners”, which you and no one else has ever been able to prove exist, want the general public to have? Certainly, you must have some idea how you know such occult knowledge? I suppose you believe that these “owners” have the power to make this government spend all that money, they are under some type of spell that compels them to rack up massive debt in hope that they can destroy the whole economy of which they will then, finally have control over absolute shambles. If that is your idea of how and why they, these occult “owners” of the FED are operating then you should really think about it again, see if that really makes any sense whatsoever.

Certainly, it should be relatively easy to show where the massive amounts of money the FED is printing up is going, so, show us that all that money is not going to the government, but to these “private owners”. Since, it is doubtful that you even know how the entire monetary system works under the FED, I have serious doubts that you can show us anything. Thus far I’ve had Greenbackers tell me everything from Goldman Sachs actually prints the money to the FED prints the money. Greenbackers are, from my experience, an ignorant lot. They cannot form an adequate argument for their case so they rely upon every deceitful tactic imaginable.

I don’t trust Greenbackers, they lie, use fake quotes, misinformation, diversion tactics, fake or distorted history and all to promote what they call the truth. To Greenbackers the truth is just a lie in a different form.

I dare say, Soleprobe, Dr. NO, LibertyBaby and DrKrbyLuv are all and the same person. I say that because it is interesting the construction that is used, they all seem very similar in they way they present their case, they all avoid the hard questions, divert attention away from those questions to another subject when they can't give answer and as a final resort, they make accusations.

Actually, I believe it was this very same Greenbacker: Soleprobe that stated this whole movement was EVIL, and that he once thought Dr.Paul was not corruptible, the inference is that Dr. Paul is now corruptible.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Are you for real? Your thread has got to be some kind.......

of joke. have you truly ever researched the Federal Reserve System? Read G. Edward Griffin's book: "Creature From Jekkyl Island". Or perhaps view one of several of his You Tube videos on the subject which exist. I am shocked you would make such a comment on the Daily Paul. The claims made by the previous individual are spot on. Why you have a vendetta against "Greenbackers" is beyond my comprehension. This term originated during the Lincoln era.

Republicae's picture

How odd, you suggest that I

How odd, you suggest that I read G. Edward Griffin's writings and yet, it appears that you yourself have failed to read, or perhaps simply over-looked this in his writings:

"The federal government does not own any stock in the System. In that sense, the Fed is privately owned. That, however, is misleading in that it implies a typical private-ownership relationship in which the stockholders own and control. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this case, the stock carries no proprietary interest, cannot be sold or pledged as collateral, and does not carry ordinary voting rights. Each bank is entitled to but one vote regardless of the amount of stock it holds. In reality, the stock is not evidence of “ownership” but simply certificates showing how much operating capital each bank has put into the System." G. Edward Griffin

Perhaps you overlooked that bit of information, it is found in the rarely read appendix of The Creature From Jekyll Island.

Therefore, before you make such assumptions as to my knowledge on the subject, don't you think it would be wise if you look up my various threads and posts, in them you will find that I have indeed researched the issue quite substantially, read my blog you will see the same thing. I have indeed researched the matter and have read books on the subject that I doubt that you have ever heard of or read. I spent three months on Jekyll Island doing research 5 years ago, through there is not much in the way of documentation remaining on the Island, there are still some very interesting information that can be found there.

I realize that there are certain elements that hold the position that the FED is a private bank, and indeed it has elements of private ownership within it, in particular the 12 Regional FED Banks, but the reality is far worse than that. The truth is that this creation is a Mercantilist System of Patronage that has, from the beginning, combined the most corrupt elements of Government and Corporate Banking. As I have stated, there is no other corporation, that really is private, that is structured like the FED, it was a creation of government, a concoction planned out by politicians that were closely associated with the largest banking powers in this country, but it acts on behalf of this government to control and manipulate monetary policy for particular political and corporate ends. This government could not possibly expand the way it has if not for the FED, it is the beneficiary of all FED policies, the FED is one of the prime facilitators of government control and unbridled power. It has never been in the best interest of the People of this country, it is a system that allows this government to operate beyond the Constitutional limitations placed on it therefore, it is far more dangerous than merely a private banking institution.

Why Soleprobe and others are so willing to relieve the culpability of government from the FED is beyond me, Congress could, at any time, repeal the Federal Reserve Act, liquidate all assets of the Federal Reserve Banks.

I don't care how popular a particular view is, how many times it has appeared on a Youtube video, how many books that position is written in, if such view does not, in fact, find a valid basis in documented reality, or even in a rational construction of evidence, they why on earth would I or anyone else lend credence to such a position? You Sir, present a fools position, one that is based simply on a popularized faith in a particular view, but when confronted with documented evidence, or even logic to the contrary of your position, what do you do with it?

By the way, I also research every single monthly balance sheet that is issued by the FED and have done so for years, probably more years then you have been living, can you say that you have done the same?

Can you tell me exactly how money is created in the Federal Reserve System, how fractional reserve banking functions? Do you know how much debt was created through the Lincoln Greenback system, how it functioned? Surely if you are going to try to rebut my comments you must have a basis for such a rebuttal aside from you think Soleprobe is spot on, when in fact, if you read Soleprobes posts on the subject for the last 16 weeks he has been on the DP you will find something very different.

So, I ask you, provide me with the proofs I ask of Soleprobe, you are, are you not, defending his position, therefore you must have some proofs that you are able to stand upon to support that position. I am not talking about what you have seen in a Youtube video, what you have read in a book, but some documentation that will support your position, since it is the same as Soleprobe's.

The claims made by Soleprobe are essentially bogus! I have no vendetta against these modern Greenbackers, but due to the experience I have with them, I judge them by the words and tactics they use, which are deceptive in character and execution, they use diversion as a tactic to avoid hard questions, they use illogical construction to support their positions and their proposals for a solution. They are not above using and have used fake quotes attributed to historical figures, misinformation, distorted and incorrect history all in an effort to propagate their apparent cultist-like cause. I say cultist because I have yet to meet one who will, when faced with documented facts, that will not avoid such confrontation and divert attention away from them with some straw-man argument. They cannot explain the mechanics of their proposals, nor, in most cases can they actually explain how the monetary system works.

The modern Greenbackers, like Soleprobe, lay claim to the Lincoln Greenback as the idea form of money, they promote it as being a debt-free form of currency system, but when faced with the facts of the Lincoln Greenback they divert attention away from those facts. They fail to give answer when confronted with the facts about the amount of debt accumulated under the Greenback system and therefore, they avoid the argument altogether. Such avoidance only gives proof that their position is extremely weak and based not on any factual information, but upon a dogmatic view unsupported by facts or documentation.

The question is, of course, why do you hold the position that you hold, is it because you have actually based it upon actual, validated information, or because you simply believe everything you've read or heard that matches up with your particular view. Honestly, I use to hold similar views as you and Soleprobe concerning the FED however, the more I actually researched the issue I could no longer hold such views unless I simply closed my eyes to the facts that I found. Thus, I call such views dogma, for they must be held on the face-value of a faith placed in them, not on facts presented, not on logical construction. Thus, I trust nothing based simply on the fact that it appears in a book or particularly because someone has made a video that appears on Youtube.

If you are therefore depending on the Creature from Jekyll Island, or for that matter depending on YouTube videos for your information then I must say that you should vet your sources, no matter where they come from. I take nothing at face value just because it is written in a popular book or, in particular on a Youtube video of all places. That's part of the problem we have today, too many people place their faith in some video instead of actually doing the research themselves or vetting the information they have heard or read.

I actually have about 80 books on the subject of the Federal Reserve, here are a few found within my library:

A History of the Federal Resere: 1913- 1950 by Meltzer
The Origins of the Federal Reserve: Rothbard
The Federal Reserve Systems and the Banks: PAUL M. WARBURG
The Creature from Jekyll Island: Griffin
The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: Mullins
End the FED: Paul
The Fourth Branch: Shull
The Case Against the FED: Rothbard
The Federal Reserve Monster: Clark/Campbell 1922
The ABC of the Federal Reserve System: Kemmerer 1920
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913: Iden 1914
The Federal Reserve Act: Owen 1919
Paine’s Analysis of the Federal Reserve Act and Cognate Statues: Paine 1917
Federal Reserve Act as Amended to December 24, 1919: NBC of New York 1920
Congressional Debates on the Glass-Owen Bill of 1913 (Federal Reserve Acts of 1913)

Perhaps two of the best-known authors who purported that foreign banking families own the FED are Eustace Mullins and Gary Kah. Of course, the problem is that there are numerous errors to be found in the writings of both these authors. Of course, such positions are held by numerous people, primarily because of popular writings like those of Mullins, Kah and more recently Ellen Brown, and even more popular videos by people like Bill Still. Yet, for all the popularity of those writings and videos, few seem to question their content and, it appears, accept them at face value which, is, without doubt always a mistake.

Interestingly, none of these authors can present valid information to substantiate their claims, in fact, in many cases their claims conflict each other. They can't all be right can they, in fact, they can all be wrong, but people rarely consider that fact. Facts are hard things; they require either acceptance or rejection depending on the position of the person viewing those facts. Some prefer to base their positions on faith; faith in a certain position takes far more effort than simply relying upon facts for the truth. Nothing in my book however, is worse than a belief based on half-truths, fake quotes, distorted history and misinformation. I find that those who use such tactics have a broader agenda in hand, such as, from my experience, those who advocate the doctrine of the modern Greenback system as a solution tend to be hard-core supporters of a power centralized government, one that can manage a fiat monetary system properly.

Gary Kah states that the following are the owners, or at least major shareholders under of the New York FED, however the way Kah denotes these stockholders doesn’t even relate to the way stock is designated at the FED. He calls the following “Class A shareholders” even though there is no such thing in the FED system. There is a classification of directors and how they are appointed under 12 USCA §302. Kah claims that these stockholders own about 60% give or take.

• Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
• Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris
• Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
• Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
• Lehman Brothers of New York
• Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
• Chase Manhattan Bank, and
• Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13).

The problem with Kah’s list is that it completely contradicts that of Mullins, who complied this list, again, like Kah, Mullins states that these stockholders own about 60% of the shares, give or take.

Citibank
• Chase Manhattan Bank
• Morgan Guaranty Trust
• Chemical Bank
• Manufacturers Hanover Trust
• Bankers Trust Company
• National Bank of North America, and
• Bank of New York.

Many of the positions that are popular today about the idea that the FED is a private bank originates from the writings of Mullins. Interestingly enough, the two lists are only separated by 8 years between the two authors writings. In fact, if you read various writings of those who hold such positions, you will find all manner of contradictions, thus the question should be asked, if they are using valid information for their research then why are they ending up with vastly different conclusions?

Additionally, Eustace Mullins was a NAZI who, wrote some horrible pamphlets on the extermination of, as he put it, the Jewish Parasite. Sorry, but I cannot respect the conclusions of a man of such questionable character and intellect.

Now, what everyone seems to avoid, the issue that is the fly in the ointment of such positions is that of the Federal Reserve Act itself and the requirements of that law. The law requires that all nationally chartered banks, commercial banks and what were Savings and Loan banks buy stock in their respective Regional Bank, there is no option but ownership. This makes them member banks under 12 USCA §282. State banks have the option of voluntary membership. Stock is proportional to the size of the bank itself, but the dividend is also fixed by law, in other words the return on the shares are fixed at 6%, no more, no less. To get an idea how much that is each year one need look nowhere else but to the annual reports of the FED, after approximately 97% of all revenues of the Federal Reserve are returned to the U.S. Treasury, the remaining revenues are consist of overhead for running the FED and what remains is profit to be paid out in dividends, each member bank receiving 6%, no more, no less. So, who is making the line-share of the revenues? Certainly not the banks, but they definitely benefit in ways that we cannot really imagine from FED policy. The greatest sum of FED revenues goes to the United States Government, it is also the greatest beneficiary of FED monetary policy.

Now, interestingly 12 USCA §286 does not allow the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank to be publicly traded, as in a private corporation, in fact, it is not even allowed to sell its stock to the public at all or individual investors nor can foreign banks or individuals buy or hold stock in the Federal Reserve and, in fact, there is absolute no record in existence that I am aware of where stock can be shown to be held by foreign banks. Additionally, 12 USCA §283 prohibits non-banking firms from buying or holding stock in the FED, therefore the idea that Goldman Sachs has been or is a major stockholder is, at least it appears to be in the minds of some who promote the idea that the FED is a completely private banking corporation, is contrary to the actual law.

Strangely, the New York Federal Reserve lists the largest member banks of the FED:

• Chase Manhattan Bank
• Citibank
• Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
• Fleet Bank
• Bankers Trust
• Bank of New York
• Marine Midland Bank, and
• Summit Bank.3

Or course, those who promote the idea that the FED is owned by old Banking Families of Europe, through ownership of the major American Banks, must disregard a great deal of documentation to the contrary, they must therefore place their whole position on faith in simple assumptions, but not on fact. There are those who state that these European Banking Families hold all the major banks, in one way or another, particular, they claim those in London. The problem then arises for those who make the claim that the FED is owned and thus controlled by Foreign Bankers, where are they on the list of the largest American Banks?

Another problem is that of the major foreign stockholders, few of them match the position held by the advocates of those who say the FED is owned and controlled by European Banking Families, the fact is that there are more Asian and Middle Eastern stockholders in American Banks than there are European, thus their position continues to sink under their own assertions and the assumptions they must make in order to continue holding their position.

Additionally, the entire concept of stock ownership in the Federal Reserve is completely different than what you would find in every other type of actual Private Corporation. Votes in private corporations are based on proportional stockholdings that is not true when it comes to the FED; stockholders get one vote only no matter how many shares they may own. Additionally, stockholders cannot vote to change the bi-laws of the FED as with private corporations. Thus, in order for the idea about a group of European Bankers controlling the FED, they would, in fact, have to own every single member bank to have controlling interest and thus get enough votes to control the entire FED operations, but even if they did, that is not the way that FED policy is determined within the FOMC, which has nothing to do with the votes of stockholders, thus the entire idea of such control is an exercise in little more than mental masturbation and the promotion of a particular belief that is not, from what I have seen, based on any fact or, for that matter, even logical construction. If the goal, as those who promote the idea, is global domination and control, then they must stretch their conclusions to the extreme.

Thus, if the International Banking Elite actually control the FED, they are doing and have done a piss-poor job of it if their goals are, as proposed, to control this country and bring about a global governance through such operations. Additionally, the idea that the FED is a monolithic regime completely disregards the fact that throughout its history there have been and continue to be instances where policy decisions are denied operation because of descent among the ranks of the FED board members. All one need do is look at the way the entire FED is structured to see that such monolithic powers do no exist within the FED itself. The Board of Governors and the FOMC control the FED. The Board is completely appointed, not by member banks, but by the President of the United States and is confirmed by the Senate. These government appointees are essentially the ones that determine reserve ratios, how much new money each of the Regional FEDs may issue each year. If you view the make up of the current Board of Governors you will see a mix of backgrounds, not all of them have a banking background, some are academics, including the FED Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Additionally, despite the hype from those who hold that the FED is private and controlled by the Banking Families of Europe, the decisions of the FED do not always coincide with the interests of either European Banks or, for that matter, U.S. Banks. That is something that those who hold the view that the FED is owned and controlled by these banking powers would rather avoid, because it definitely doesn’t fit in with their view that these banking powers have compete control over the FED. The holders of such views also cannot explain how the Presidential appointed Board of Governors, could all and always be in the pockets of the International Banking Families, but that is exactly what we would have to believe if their position were actually true.

Of course, those who hold the opinion that the FED is a private corporation, which profits off the American people, must, once again, ignore actual documentation in order to maintain their position. Many, like Mullins, stated, that most of the revenues collected by the FED represent huge profits that are, in some odd, roundabout way, diverted to the European Banking Families. Of course, in 2011, the FED brought in $77.4 Billion in revenues, from that the FED sent $75.4 Billion to the U.S. Treasury, thus $2 Billion was the gross revenues of the FED for 2011. Hardly huge profits when you compare them to other actual private corporations, such as Exxon.

Thus, the idea that the FED is a private corporation defies not only the structure of the FED, but the ways its revenues are distributed. For if it were true that the FED was private, as the position is so ardently held, then it would appear that the stockholders are getting the short-end of the stick and the government is reaping the major portion of the so-called “profits”, of course, these that hold the private FED view, cannot give anything close to a satisfying explanation for such a discrepancy in their position.

Now, you are more than welcome to rebut anything I have said, but do so with this in mind, such rebuttals should be based on actual information, not in the form that you just presented, for that has nothing to do with reality only a propagated version that is promoted regardless of factual information. Don't just present smoke and mirrors and expect it to be accepted as fact, present facts then we have a basis of a real argument.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

The difference is "Private" stock versus "Public" stockholders

Entirely different Federal statutes or laws apply to each. You are incorrect in your assessnent of the typical private ownership relationship in which said owner has absolutely no control over FED "Private" stock. Owners of said stock (i.e. N.M Rothschild, Several of the Rockefeller Clan, The Davidsons, Schiffs, J.P. Morgan, etc. can indeed will or pass on to other familiy memers after death, as well as the establishment of a "Trust" post death. However, as was and continues to be common amongst the super wealthy, A "Pure" Trust was or is established which does not imply ownership of said "Private" stockholder, however, complete and utter control of the Federal Reserve Stock is established and will continue for futute generations. All of the benefits of ownership without "actual" ownership. A common practice amongst the super wealthy. evidentalyy, there are only a handful of Law Firms Globally which are even capable of creating a proper, lawful "Pure" Trust. A clause within the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states a sale per the dissolution or abolishment of the FED ( a possile future scenario), would entitle a payment amount per our Federal Gov. via the United States Treasury to the "owners" of this "Private" Bank. the amount of 1913 dollars of $450 Million. Considering the dollar has lost about 97-98% of its purchasing power since 1913 (the advent of the FED), I have no idea what $450 million dollars would equate to in 2012 dollars purchasing power.

Republicae's picture

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining...

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining...

Are you for real? Your thread must be some kind of joke. have you truly ever researched the Federal Reserve System? Read G. Edward Griffin's book: "Creature From Jekkyl Island". Or perhaps view one of several of his You Tube videos on the subject which exist. I am shocked you would make such a comment on the Daily Paul. The claims made by the previous individual are spot on. Why you have a vendetta against "Greenbackers" is beyond my comprehension. This term originated during the Lincoln era.Sable Arms

You will notice your words, it appears they apply to your thread more than to my comments: ARE YOU FOR REAL? YOUR THREAD MUST BE SOME KIND OF JOKE...now compare what you wrote there with your current post, does there appear to be a logical correlation between the two?

That is obviously not only my assessment, but also the assessment of the very person you said I should read to support your own claims: G. Edward Griffin. The man that you yourself used to make a case against my comments, yet now you abandon that for yet another positional claim that dismisses Griffins research. You lambasted me and made the claim that I must not have read The Creature From Jekyll Island, that I must not be aware of all the videos on the subject, yet here you are now asserting the very opposite in hopes that your claims may be validated in a different way, you simply cannot use the type of distorted logic to continue to make a claim then contradict that claim when it no longer supports your position. It was you who made the claim that Mr. Griffin, in his book supported the idea that the FED was a privately owned banking system, but that is not the case is it?

You are simply making claims, claims that appear to be based more on assumptions and popularized myths than actual evidence. Where is your proof that such claims are actually valid and not simply a belief you have formed based on such popular opinions. You don’t make your case at all, instead you rely upon mythology to support your position. I’m sorry that does not cut the mustard.

The solution for you should be simple, show me the documentation you have to support your claim that the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Davisons, Schiffs, the Morgans, etc, are indeed owners of some private, secret stock in the FED. You should be able to show, without much trouble I would assume, that such all this is true.

Now, if you are referring to this in the USC, then the Stockholders, which are all Nationally Chartered Banks and some State Banks, all forced by law to be stockholders in the FED, then this is exactly what the code states if the FED becomes insolvent or is dissolved by Congress:

12 USC § 290 - USE OF EARNINGS TRANSFERRED TO THE TREASURY: Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied.

Thus far you again fail to make a case for your position, you instead rely upon that which has been popularized by the myth-makers that prey on the minds of men who simply would rather accept a particular version of history rather than research it themselves and rely upon actual documentation for such verification.

You apparently are not aware of the manner in which stock is held in the FED, all governed by very specific laws, laws that have not changed since, although a few have been amended, since the passage of the FED Act of 1913. There is no private stock in the FED, I can give you exact federal codes if you like. Additionally, there are no record, no documentation whatsoever, upon which you can make a claim to the contrary. In an actual private corporation there is proportional ownership, with that type of ownership the larger the proportion the greater voice within the corporation, that is not the way the FED stock is structured. There is no proportional ownership within the FED, there is no ability of any member to make changes to the FED, to direct the decisions of the FED, to change the expressed policies of the FED.

There is NO PRIVATE STOCK in the FED, it is delineated stock where the holders of that stock are, by law, forced to be members and therefore stockholders of the FED, where they receive, by law, a fixed dividend and nothing more. There is absolutely no documentation where you can provide proof of your claim, again, it is mythology and you believe that mythology despite evidence to the contrary, do you know what that is called?

You make the claim that these families own Private Stock, in trust and yet you cannot provide proof because you have no proof, you have nothing but a claim, that’s all. You have certain popularized stories, popularized assertions that tend to sell books, make videos popular and that’s really all you have isn’t it?

Even you assertion of a Pure Trust, does nothing, absolutely nothing to support the claim you are making therefore, why should you make such a claim except to express a matter of your faith in such claims despite the absence of evidence?

Of course, it is definitely to your advantage to be able to make the claim that such Private Stocks are secret, such ownership sails beneath the surface of that which is knowable, that tends to serve the purpose of a great many of the mythmakers, the claim to either occult knowledge or some hidden agenda that is beyond the realm of actual verifiable evidence…but that doesn’t quite hold water does it? At least in my world of reality it doesn’t and in fact I would say that a great many people, especially here on the DP have come to the came conclusions as I have…we want truth, not myths, not popular stories that titillate the imagination but do little else to actually help fight the Battle for Liberty and Freedom.

By the way, in today’s dollars that $450M would be approximately $10.5B, not a very substantial amount in the banking world…by all means close the FED and pay the bastards in pieces of essentially worthless FRNs....sounds like a good deal to me!

You present feeble arguments, feckless and flaccid!

So, again don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining...such subterfuge is not to anyone's advantage except those, like yourself, who have no definitive argument which they can adequately defend with substantial proofs.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

IF youu have in fact reasearched this very subject as you ......

state, I do not understand your position. The owners or private stockholders of the FED are available online in various documents I've read over the years. Keep in mind, I was reaseraching the Fed in the 90's so to be completely honest I cannot recall where I had seen these various documents, however, rest assured, I did in fact see these ownership files on more than one occassion at nore than one website. I actually printed it out on numerous occassions and is filedd away in one of perhaps thousands of printed out files I have accumulated over the years. Easy to find online If one is truly interested in acquiring this information. These claims have been made by Numerous Authors over the years. I would reccmmend you view one of the many You Tube views on the subject ( and especially the ones by G. Edward Friffin). He equates the Federal Reserve System with a Cartel and explains it in such a way that there are absolutely no mis-interpretations, mis-conceptions, mis-understandings, etc. as to exactly what the FED is and what its history represents.

Republicae's picture

As I have said, I have spent

As I have said, I too have spent several decades, all the way back into the late 60s, on the subject, read just about every single thing there is to read on the subject. Seen lists upon supposed lists declaring, without doubt, that this lists is the real list, the actual lists of private bank owners. The fact is that all of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve are openly listed, you can get it from the SEC, it is open to the public.

As Mr. Griffin clearly explains, the Federal Reserve IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION! I am not sure just how much clearer he can be or I can be on that. It has, due to its legal structure, private elements within that structure, but it is not a private bank, it is not a private corporation, what it is, as G. Edward Griffin explains, is a government creation that operates a government monopoly or, as you put it, a cartel that benefits primarily the government and under government patronages, the banking system. The entire system, as Mr. Griffin puts it, amounts to a cartel, that does not mean that it is a privately held or privately controlled operation, it is far worse than that because it is empowered with the legal protection of this government, something that you will not find with other corporations that are actually privately owned and controlled. Now, like Mr. Griffin, I do believe that there are extremely powerful political and banking interests involved with heavily influencing decision making at the FED, but the primary decisions are based on the political necessities of this illegitimate government. In fact, if you read Murray Rothbards The Origin of the Federal Reserve, he spells out just what took place during the late 1800s and early 1900s to bring about the formation of the Federal Reserve. There were most definitely malicious intent on the part of some of the major banking families and industrialists of the period, those families exerted enormous influence upon the politicians of the day, in fact the relationship between the two was nothing less than an evil and treasonous attempt to contravene the established Law of this Land, the Constitution and in doing so, that vile relationship forced upon the American People a state of tyranny that has yet to be either fully understood or, in most quaters, even recognized for what it really is and how it functions.

I have, as I stated, seen literally scores of so-called “lists of owners” each list complied each contain a different set of owners, I pointed that out in one of my comments above, in fact I have seen what was purported to be THE LIST, but there were so many obvious contradictions with dates and details that it was obviously bunk, as are ever single “list of owners” that I have seen in all my years of researching this subject. There is NO ONE to date that has been able to produce such a list and actually validate that list as owners of the Federal Reserve. Such lists, the so-called lists of secret private owners, some type of secret stock that allows them to secretly control the Federal Reserve is a fools folly and it is a major distraction in some quarters. Therefore, if there is no such validation and, in fact, if the many lists that I’ve seen contain so many obvious mistakes, obvious contradictions, omissions and additions that make no sense, why should anyone put any credence in them? Is it simply a matter of the convenience of belief that one does so, I think that is the absolute wrong thing to do and, in fact, creates the type of subterfuge that creates a massive amount of confusion in the hearts and minds of people, distracting them from a goal and target because they have been duped into believing something that simply does not exist.

My position is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a system that was created by government, for the benefit of government and for the government’s patronage system, forming as it was, a cartelization of the entire banking system in this country. It made it possible for the transformation of this country from what remained of the last remnants of a Republic into a consolidated, centralized and planned economy, one definition of which could be Mercantilist or Fascist or Corporatist. The system is the basis for all expansion of government power beyond the bounds that limited it through the Constitutional Republic, it allowed for the unrestrained extension of power and authority. My position is that until we realize just what we are fighting, we will continue to be distracted and unfocused, spending literally thousands of hours looking for something that is not there...also, I feel that as a government creation it can be destroyed through the exertion of great pressure on the government and it must be destroyed if we are to ever see the Restoration of the Republic.

So, you say “I CAN REST ASSURED THAT YOU DID SEE OWNERSHIP FILES ON A WEBSITE”, well, that is most definitely reassuring isn’t it? It is also meaningless in terms of valid, verifiable research documentation. It’s like saying I saw Big Foot and that’s about what it amounts to honestly. Again, I know those claims have been made through the years by numerous authors, so what, there are numerous authors that say things, does that make them true? I have to stand on what the evidence tell me, what the character of the Federal Reserve in regards to this government points to, and it points to a government created monopoly power, a cartelization of the banking, the entire banking industry under the centralized control of the Federal Reserve. That is the part of the system that G. Edward Griffin speaks about when he said the system “amounts to what is a cartel”, it is not the Federal Reserve along that is the cartel, it is the entire system of the Central Bank and the banking industry as it falls under the umbrella of the Federal Reserve System.

Again, why would a researcher such G. Edward Griffin write this in his book if he did not believe it to be true:

"The federal government does not own any stock in the System. In that sense, the Fed is privately owned. That, however, is misleading in that it implies a typical private-ownership relationship in which the stockholders own and control. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this case, the stock carries no proprietary interest, cannot be sold or pledged as collateral, and does not carry ordinary voting rights. Each bank is entitled to but one vote regardless of the amount of stock it holds. In reality, the stock is not evidence of “ownership” but simply certificates showing how much operating capital each bank has put into the System." G. Edward Griffin

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun