57 votes

Ben Swann Reality Check Special: Talking Federal Reserve, Jekyll Island, Audit The FED, QE3

Comment viewing options

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

Ben is all wet

It is indicative of the nature of the beast to be so powerfully destructive that the infections of falsehood infect those who prop themselves up as authorities of the truth.

I am not one.

I do not claim to be an authority. My observation is offered competitively. Each individual must be their own authority.

Stopping the "Reality Check" at time 1:32

One Step at a time: what is Quantitative Easing...

A competitive explanation can be offered, to think otherwise, to censor any other competitive explanation, is a example of how the problem becomes a problem: monopoly.

So as a reality check on the reality check I offer.

Quantitative easing is in one word Monopoly.

Monopoly cannot exist if there is competition.

No one else, no single person, or no group of people, on the planet Earth, can write themselves a check for as much money as everyone else combined, and then spend that check without being guilty of counterfeiting...and here is the important part...according to the Monopoly Authorities.

Who are the Monopoly Authorities?

You listen to one of them, his name is Ben Swan, and another one, if you look close enough, is in the mirror.

Monopoly of this type, this Quantitative Easing type, is naked fraud, made legal, and naked extortion made legal.

The names thrown around are false on purpose, also known as fraud.

Why repeat the false names?

Reality failed, measurably, and accountable to Ben Swan, and all those who have a vested interest in actually holding each other to a true account, so no, competitively speaking, the Reality Check here, is no such thing, it is more of the same false fronts covering up the naked crimes made legal by the false authorities, from Ben Bernanke, UP to Ben Swan, and on UP to the people who look carefully in the mirror for the facts.

Just the facts mam, as Joe Friday was once demanding on Dragnet.

Quantitative Easing is a crime in progress, the crime is discoverable as treason, as the fraud money constitutes a loan taken out against The Good Faith and Credit of the American PRODUCTIVE people, and the borrowers like Ben Bernanke, and his ilk, his Cabal of criminals, are buying World War III, they are buying torture made legal on your dimes, and they are buying a HELL of a lot of Serial Killing on your dimes, and their number includes so many pedophiles, psychopaths, sociopaths, rapists, torturers, and serial killers, that the lists of their victims flow into their graves so fast the established, authoritative, methods of documenting those deaths are set aside in favor of "good enough for government work" examples like these:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/...

Look at the evidence, see for yourself, know exactly what you are buying when you loan your earnings to people who then claim that you are borrowing from them, and they charge you interest on the debt that they create as they spend your power on destroying anyone who dares to compete with their monopoly POWER.

You are in line, no need to get in line, you are in line, and this line goes to HELL.

Good luck.

Joe

Cutting to the Chase

Why call it Quantitative Easing when it is Monopoly Powered Criminal Fraud? This guy is talking about it at 38 minutes...he also calles trial by jury fallacy at 2 hours 12 minutes http://www.dailypaul.com/277482/debate-larken-rose-vs-atty-t...

Same host who interviewed John Taylor Gatto...however this is a civil debate of sorts...a kick off of more to come.

...

Counterfeit Trial by Jury?

Counterfeit Trial by Jury can be confused with a voluntary, competitive, cooperative, Trial by Jury.

I think that the person claiming that there has to be an organized power that works to defend people, meaning anyone, not a class of people, anyone, without exception, or with exceptions that volunteer to be excepted, is right.

I can't put words in anyone's mouth, but that is demonstrably true.

Absent that organized power of defense, anyone, anywhere, can be abandoned, left to be enslaved, and destroyed, against their knowledge, and against their will.

I think the guy biting his tongue is speaking about oranges, while the guy making the statement about the necessity of organized defensive power, is speaking about apples.

Apples:
Organized, step by step, defensive power, designed to avoid abandoning victims, where victims will be enslaved, and murdered, by criminals if no such power exists.

Oranges:
Modern false Trial by Jury, where Legal Criminals have infected an effective, competitive, free market, voluntary, cooperative organized defensive power proven to work, and made that defensive power into a criminal power used by criminals with badges.

If the guy biting his tongue has no knowledge of modern day examples of non-union lawyers, utilizing common law, such as the example offered by Carl Miller, than that guy biting his tongue is ignorant in that respect, and he aught to know better than to prop himself up as a false authority over the true measure of true authority - in my opinion.

My son just finished a case where he was a juror in Trial by Jury, and I can speak about it, if there is a demand for it, whereby the proponent of Trial by Jury, his expressed viewpoint, is reinforced, and the tongue bitter's viewpoint is demonstrably off base - meaningless.

If no one steps up, voluntarily, to help in defense against crime, what is the likely result?

Joe

I don't know if you have noticed...

but there always seems to be a demand by me for your words. If however, your time is limited, I do not want to make demands.

"My son just finished a case where he was a juror in Trial by Jury, and I can speak about it, if there is a demand for it, whereby the proponent of Trial by Jury, his expressed viewpoint, is reinforced, and the tongue bitter's viewpoint is demonstrably off base - meaningless."

I am interested in your thoughts on your son's experience as a juror. So if you have the time, I have the inclination :)

The guy biting his tongue is an anarchist. He was put into jail for 12 months for not sending in a piece of paper to the IRS (I assume). His premise is that jurors who believe in false authority are not safeguards against injustice. I think the other guy is a minarchist as he believes in very limited government.

The premise of the anarchist is that an individual cannot give rights to a government that the individual in himself does not possess. He also says government is synonomys for evil because government always results in evil or some words along those lines.

I found the debate interesting.

...

Most amazing thing to me.

"I am interested in your thoughts on your son's experience as a juror. So if you have the time, I have the inclination :)"

The deadly seriousness possessed by my son as to the immense weight of responsibility voluntarily realized by my son, in this case, cannot be expressed with words; you had to be there.

He said but not verbatim, he did not take my advice and write these experiences down while they were fresh in his mind, these things as he worked to set a man free.

We are not here to settle for less than demonstrable proof, or some such wording I can't remember, but I remember his phrase concerning what they were there to do, according to my son, we are here to poke holes in the conclusions of guilt.

That was a profound thing to hear from some guy who happens to have been living in the same house as me since he was born.

He said also, reporting to me what he felt compelled to say, against opposition during deliberations, that there is a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".

I wish, like that does any good, that you could ask what that means, of him, ask him directly, instead of having to rely upon an interpreter.

The case had to do with, get this, Homeland Security, involved, whereby a person, the accused, allegedly threatened a "boss" while employed at the local "Social Security" office.

The "prosecutors" wanted to nail this "terrorist" to the cross.

My son says to me, even "Homeland Security" thought it was a frivolous case. But, there were 3 women, dead set, on nailing this "terrorist" to the cross, and John took up the challenge to set them straight.

The guy, it turns out, made a comment, and the comment went something along the lines of choking the life out of the boss, and John says, to the assembled Jurors, we all believe he did it, meaning that he did "say words", and then my son followed up the admission with the comment about there being a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

The Jury was hung up, and my son, nor I, know what happens next, but even if there is another kangaroo court (Admiralty without a real Trial by Jury based upon sortition) the defending (but still "Union") lawyer now has many more facts uncovered (but kept secret from the defending team) with which to offer another hand picked jury.

My son is confident that his help did help keep the legal criminals from further injuring the person that may not be innocent, but was certainly not proven guilty of any specific wrongdoing.

Life goes on.

The "accused" already lost his job of 16 years, most likely his "retirement", and he probably knows (better than I do) what is, or is not, exactly: "Social Security".

"The guy biting his tongue is an anarchist."

I think the word you are looking for is dupe, or ass, but I know you are sensitive to cuss words, but ass is in The Bible no?

"He was put into jail for 12 months for not sending in a piece of paper to the IRS (I assume)."

Maybe he might want to look up a competent non-union lawyer like Carl Miller, or do some more self educating before running at the mouth next time, since his obvious measurable state of power-less ignorance already proved to be exactly what it is?

"His premise is that jurors who believe in false authority are not safeguards against injustice."

How many times has this ass been on a jury, and he props himself up as an authority?

Proof by providing the working example?

"I think the other guy is a minarchist as he believes in very limited government."

Does he have any other competitive examples of just how well VOLUNTARY FREE MARKET government works? He offered, already, that time when Trial by Jury worked, which is very well explained in the Essay by Lysander Spoooner. Those "Lords" gave away their power too, if you can understand how that worked.

Were they calling themselves "Lords" or "Nobles": I don't remember, but I can look it up in Trial by Jury.

Hold on.

"The barons and people having obtained by the charter all the liberties they had demanded of the king, it was further [*25] provided by the charter itself that twenty-five barons, should be appointed by the barons, out of their number, to keep special vigilance in the kingdom to see that the charter was observed, with authority to make war upon the king in case of its violation."

Barons

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35

The Barons gave up all their "involuntary" power to "The People" too, with that Magna Carte deal, with that Trial by Jury, based upon sortition, which worked so well to limit crime down so low, whereby "punishment" ended up being mere fines for the few cases of crime remaining.

Alas people forget.

Then they remember, which, as you may know, is exemplified again in America, with those 13 competitive free market constitutionally limited states in that voluntary union under The Articles of Confederation, where Trial by Jury, based upon sortition, was working in each of those sovereign republics.

Or you may not yet understand how that did work as another example of how voluntary government designed to be voluntary government works, before the Elephant in the room shows up again.

And again.

"The premise of the anarchist is that an individual cannot give rights to a government that the individual in himself does not possess."

Can I help you with your word problems?

A.
"The premise of the anarchist is that an individual cannot give rights to a government that the individual in himself does not possess."

B.
"The premise of the ass is that an individual cannot give rights to a government that the ass in himself does not possess."

"He also says government is synonomys for evil because government always results in evil or some words along those lines."

Things being held accountable for the actions of people?

"I found the debate interesting."

I find your words more interesting.

To each their own?

Joe

Thank You

I read these words as soon as I saw them the day you wrote the, but I was having a hard time so didn't write back till now. I want you to know I appreciate you taking the time to tell me about your son's experience.

"We are not here to settle for less than demonstrable proof, or some such wording I can't remember, but I remember his phrase concerning what they were there to do, according to my son, we are here to poke holes in the conclusions of guilt.

That was a profound thing to hear from some guy who happens to have been living in the same house as me since he was born."

Those words remind me of your words http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2745423 :

“…and I say that, ‘I am here to avoid abandoning the victim and avoid convicting an innocent man.’ ”

“He said also, reporting to me what he felt compelled to say, against opposition during deliberations, that there is a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".”

It sounds to me like he has his father’s sense of justice and the ability to see past the surface of things. The ability to reason and pick out falsity!

“The case had to do with, get this, Homeland Security, involved, whereby a person, the accused, allegedly threatened a "boss" while employed at the local "Social Security" office.”

Wow, Homeland Security now gets involved with threats? That is kinda scary considering we have entered a phase in this country where people are guilty until proven innocent…or not. So now Homeland Security shows up? How is threatening a boss a matter of National Security?

“My son says to me, even "Homeland Security" thought it was a frivolous case. But, there were 3 women, dead set, on nailing this "terrorist" to the cross, and John took up the challenge to set them straight.”

Good for John! I bet you are proud of him for taking a stand! You told him so?

“The guy, it turns out, made a comment, and the comment went something along the lines of choking the life out of the boss, and John says, to the assembled Jurors, we all believe he did it, meaning that he did "say words", and then my son followed up the admission with the comment about there being a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". “

So freedom of speech is out of fashion if a threat is involved? Is it a hate crime or something?

“The Jury was hung up, and my son, nor I, know what happens next, but even if there is another kangaroo court (Admiralty without a real Trial by Jury based upon sortition) the defending (but still "Union") lawyer now has many more facts uncovered (but kept secret from the defending team) with which to offer another hand picked jury. “

So, was it a hung jury? Doesn’t that mean that the guy goes free? Why don’t ya’ll know what happens next? I thought that was how the Jury’s exercised Jury Nullification.
-----------
Are you trying to be funny?:

“but ass is in The Bible no?”

Yes, but it applies to a donkey, not a butt :)

• " ‘I found the debate interesting.’

I find your words more interesting.

To each their own?”

I did find it interesting to hear 2 guys hammering out concepts. You asked,

“Does he have any other competitive examples of just how well VOLUNTARY FREE MARKET government works?”

Yes, but I cannot remember what they were. He did tell the Anarchist, when the Anarchist asked, that he could live in his country without being a citizen. Then the Anarchist wanted to know if he would have to follow any rules, or something like that, or participate in the rules. The Minarchist, if I understood right, alluded that the Anarchist would only get involved with rules, if he broke them. It seemed like the rules had to do with not injuring others.

My brother-in-law is dying:

http://www.dailypaul.com/277991/people-ask-me-how-can-younot...

Even more interesting that that!

"Wow, Homeland Security now gets involved with threats? That is kinda scary considering we have entered a phase in this country where people are guilty until proven innocent…or not. So now Homeland Security shows up? How is threatening a boss a matter of National Security?"

It turned out that the alleged provider of evidence, the source of false hearsay, was coached by the "authorities" to bypass their own rules and instead of a hand written notice of an alleged threat, the "witness" was interviewed while having answers to questions typed out on a paper that was then signed by the "witness". Those same "authorities" where then covering up, ineffectively, their inability to follow their own rules, using what can be considered, at least by me, leverage, or blackmail, to keep the fellow conspirators sticking to the code of silence.

It was really laughable, hearing my son speak of these things, but again he was deadly serious during the case, and he would not speak a word about it until it was over.

The printed "testimony" included a nebulous reference to a gun, and so Homeland Security was called, they searched the alleged "terrorists" (my term not the courts as far as I know) house looking for this alleged weapon. Although the accused (presumed to be guilty) was Ex-Military he had no gun. Homeland Security went away empty handed, but really, seriously, the didn't plant one, so that says something no?

"Good for John! I bet you are proud of him for taking a stand! You told him so?"

I sure did, he knows it too, we have been living in the same house for some time now.

"So, was it a hung jury? Doesn’t that mean that the guy goes free? Why don’t ya’ll know what happens next? I thought that was how the Jury’s exercised Jury Nullification."

I thought a lot of things too, and as soon as I try to find out the real answers, I usually end up with more questions. No, I have no idea what happens next, but it was called a Hung Jury, and I think that John was told that there can be a Re-Trial, and like many things, seeing is believing.

Contradictions are the norm in Legal Crime, not the exception?

One thing (among many) that I appreciate about scripture is the perspective of death, even pain, being relative to something, not being so enormous?

Joe

Coaching

“I thought a lot of things too, and as soon as I try to find out the real answers, I usually end up with more questions. No, I have no idea what happens next, but it was called a Hung Jury, and I think that John was told that there can be a Re-Trial, and like many things, seeing is believing.

Gee, it seems to me the ones that need to be tried are the ones choaching/tampering with evidence and trying to frame the guy.

Anyways, I was thinking it would be double jeopardy for the person to be tried again after a hung jury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States but reading it does say that double trials can take place in differing sovereignties. So maybe with Homeland Security involved, they have plenty of sovereignties to try him in until they get the ruling they want.

“Contradictions are the norm in Legal Crime, not the exception?”

While doing chores today, I listened to an interesting video of a lawyer (http://www.dailypaul.com/277928/glenn-greenwald-at-yale-on-a...) talking about how a certain list of people in the US no longer promote the idea of innocent until proven guilty and that the law is not even for all and the concept isn’t even put forth anymore; Like it is a new time in America when we don’t even harken back to noble ideas, but now it is a given that some are “to big” for justice.

“One thing (among many) that I appreciate about scripture is the perspective of death, even pain, being relative to something, not being so enormous?”

Yes, the here and now is relative to eternity.

• James 4:14 KJV
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away .

I'll get back to our discussion on Political Economy and buckle down for work maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow depending on time :)

Cincinatti must be waking up.

Cincinatti must be waking up. anyone from that area? is it too close to Kentucky? or is it waking up? is Kentucky waking up? who is waking up?

two friends on facebook who aren't aware of this information are questioning the internment-resettlement pdf

who is bloody waking up !?

lawrence

Cup of Liberty...

in the morning with Ben posted on DP, thank you!

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

If this was posted back in November -

what am I missing here? Is this meant to be an "I told ya" sort of thing? Or simply just a kick ass video in itself?

Scratching my head here...

egapele's picture

The 5th of every month is Federal Reserve Awareness Day

maybe that's why it was posted.

Ya

Fonzdrew posted it back in November, but now those videos are "removed by user".

Gotta love this guy!

Ben Swann is the man!

Cyril's picture

BUMP, BUMP, BUMP, and BUMP !

BUMP, BUMP, BUMP, and BUMP !

Thank you, Ben. Thank you, emalvini.

SHARE !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Absolutely excellent !

Absolutely excellent ! Now Ben not fearing anything and hard at work to make the ugly truth and its historical Devil's details more palatable to the broadest audiences !

This man is A PATRIOT !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Ben Swann Is The Best

Wish there were more like him in America...

DJP333's picture

Agreed, I also wish

that more people would have an interest in basic economics, so they could understand why the FED is poison to our society.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
"Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves."

Excellent Info!

Thanks for Posting!

Another reason to join the Liberty Day Challenge!

Michael Nystrom's picture

Bump

thank you E!

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Your Welcome Mich~ael

Hey, your recent posts have been dyno mite!