Comment: How odd, you suggest that I

(See in situ)


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