Audit the Fed - 16 Trillion Reasons for TransparencySubmitted by myajace on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 16:38
The following is what I sent to the "opinion" section of my local newspaper today.
16 Trillion Reasons For Transparency
The first ever partial audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in 2011. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and various other bankers adamantly opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history revealed something startling:
$16 Trillion had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations, as well as foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland, between 2008 and 2010. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve was not public about the $16 Trillion bailout is pretty obvious – the American public would have been outraged to find foreign banks being bailed out while Americans were struggling to find jobs.
The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 Trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 Trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this red pill: There was NO debate about whether $16 Trillion would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world. Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve, oddly enough, is a PRIVATE entity, not an agency of government, yet it is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Interested in learning more about how the Federal Reserve devalues the U.S. dollar and causes inflation? Read “The Creature from Jeckyll Island” authored by G. Edward Griffin.
Call Congress at 202-224-3121 and urge your representatives and senators to support H.R. 459 (Audit the Fed) and S. 202(companion bill), in their entirety, NOT water downed versions.
(Note: I would have suggested reading "End the Fed" by Dr. Paul instead, but I figured I'd have a better chance of it actually being published if I left Dr. Pauls name out of the article. I hate that's the way it is, but it seems like it's sometimes easier to spread Dr. Pauls message by not even mentioning his name. The media should be ashamed.)