The Plan - A Central Bank
The Founding Fathers of the United States, desiring to protect the United States of America against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia, in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:
“Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof.”
The Federal Reserve [Fed] was not intended by Congress to be independent in its form and function. When first created in 1914, the Secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency had automatic memberships in the Fed, and the president was responsible for appointing three members of the five member Board, subject to Senate approval . However, 'concern' by Board members over the possible conflict of interest this close relationship to the Treasury might create and the possible influence the governmental appointments might have over the setting of monetary policy, resulted in nefarious changes that would result in power over the nation being held by a few select Board members. First, the Board suggested that the Federal Reserve Board meet outside Washington to discourage the secretary of the Treasury and comptroller from attending.
The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank. Although the chairman of the Fed is appointed, and the appointment originally required approval by the Senate, the decisions of the Fed do not have to be ratified by Congress. Buried in the original legislation was language granting of total power over the monetary policies of all U.S. banks. In the original 1913 law, Section 30, states: 'The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.' The language does not say to whom the rights to amend or alter or repeal FRA are given. Was this an oversight? Or, was it intentional.
Fed only authorized for one, 20-year period, without renewal.
In Section 341, Second, it states the Fed: 'To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.' It should have been dissolved in 1933, according to the law. Franklin. D. Roosevelt was President. The Fed was not terminated in 1933, nor was the FRA reauthorized at that time or any time since, other than the implied approval given by the Sarbanese-Oxley Act of 2002.
As a result of the Board's concerns given above, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1935, eliminating the requirement for the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller to serve on the Board. [The Act also renamed the Federal Reserve Board as the Board of Governors and increased the number of Board members to seven.]
Thomas Jefferson's warning had come to pass. Shame on our representatives - the servants of the People - and those whose great desire it was and is to place the American public and the world in servanthood to themselves. Don't believe me? Read on.
FRA language distances itself from the government and rights of the people to hold it accountable, and confers upon it the right to hold assets, as a non-governmental agency, but has indemnities identical to any government agency:
'No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or a director of a Federal reserve bank. [This means that no member of Congress can attend a meeting to see what is being discussed. A/K/A: Lack of accountability!] (12 USC 3019). Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the Income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.' The Fed members make money on the backs of American citizens and pay no taxes on the income earned. Is this Constitutional?
The Fed has positioned itself above the Congress; and, therefore, the people of this nation as King. And, guess who the serfs are? The original intent of our founders was that the government be a servant to the people. Over time, however, the roles have been reversed.
According to Section 25 of the FRA, the United States government has no formal control over the foreign operations of the Fed or its member banks and the Fed is exempt from taxation. This institution and its Board members are independent: independent of audits, independent of congressional supervision, and independent of the American voter.
Despite the Fed's claims to be an independent entity, the Fed was enacted as a 'federal agency', by Congress and should be subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Yet, Congress gave the Fed autonomy to carry out its responsibilities insulated from political pressure. Each of the Fed's three parts – the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee – operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed's core responsibilities. But, who decides those responsibilities - the Fed. Members of the Board of Governors are as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, though the term is shorter, and unlike the Supreme Court Justices who make decisions in respect to the Constitution, the Fed answers to no one. The Fed makes and enacts its own policy, irrespective of the Constitution.
The danger here is that, obviously, the plan of the Fed is not in the interests of the United States of America.
As the nation's central bank, the Fed derives its authority from and is subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. It can be terminated. The Congressional oversight committee periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities. But, as Alan Greenspan confirmed in his interview by Jim Lehrer, the Fed's does not answer to Congress. Fed decisions do not have to be ratified by Congress, it does not receive general funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. (The Fed is financially independent.)
[See Fed History - Button below]
George Bush presided over a minor change in the Federal Reserve Act. The Sarbanes-OxleyAct (SOX) was passed in 2002 and Congress again failed to deal with the Fed. Bush managed to keep all discussion and changes confined to reporting requirements for financial institutions. Bush knows very well who he serves, and he really serves his master well.
Few grasped the significance of Alan Greenspan being knighted on September 26, 2002, by the Queen of England. Was it a reward for preventing any real discussion, or change, of the Fed during the Sarbanes-Oxley Act debates? Had an American President been knighted, serious questions would have arisen.
The Fed's strategy: to accumulate all wealth and power through the technique of currency devaluation.
Why would the Fed want the demise of the United States it 'serves?'
To understand the answer to this question, you must understand the Fed's construction:
Congress established 12 regional [Federal] Reserve Banks as operating arms of the nation's central banking system. These regional Reserve Banks are organized much like private corporations issuing shares of stock to member banks. Ownership of a certain amount of stock in the Reserve Banks is a condition of membership in the Fed system. But, it doesn't matter that foreign governments and banks own significant interests in some member banks of the Reserve Banks and thus the Fed. Therefore, the Fed is partially foreign-owned. But the exact ownership shares of the Fed are concealed; and, until Congress makes the Fed subject to the Freedom of Information Act, we will never know to what extent the Fed is foreign-owned.
There is no more effective method of destroying a society than through currency debasement (John Maynard Keynes). The Fed devalues the currency to take its cut, and guarantee that the government has a tax base available to feed its bureaucratic family," (Charles Krautkramer) making every citizen of the United States a slave to the Fed. On July 1, 1914, a few months prior to the Fed beginning operation, the national debt of the U.S. was $2.9 billion. Today, it is more than 5,000 times larger.
The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2% of its value since 1900. Almost all of that loss has occurred since the Fed was established.
Do you think inflation is necessary? Even good? (As Mr. Bernanke put it.)
From a February 6, 2012, article:
'The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level. [Inflation]
'An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.'
'The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971. The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.' [The Fed doesn't have a mandate concerning employment.]
Read the full article at Forbes.
More is not necessarily better. Let's take, as an example, the minimum wage. An increase in a large number of people's incomes via increasing the minimum wage results in tax increases. A percentage of people would also end up in a higher tax bracket, but all will bear an increase in the amount of payroll tax that results. Price increases on goods and services resulting from higher employee costs may also be a result (not from every payroll increase, but at different points). And, price increases result in sales tax increases, as well. Further, social security and other taxes paid on incomes would go up. This is good for whom? The government.
Let's go a step further and analyze the last real estate bubble and its bust. It was touted as an American 'right' to own a home; and, as a result of 1970s Congressional actions, home loans to lower income citizens were required of lending institutions (obviously, regardless of ability to pay). If the institutions did not make a percentage of these loans out of the total amount (not number of loans, but dollar amount loaned) of loans proffered, they would lose access to Fed funds. The institutions complied and a housing bubble resulted. Housing prices went 'through the roof!' The major boost in home demand, and resulting boost in home prices, resulted in increased property taxes. Demand for goods and services to build new homes resulted in increased revenue for the government, as well. Incomes rose to keep up with the cost of housing, so tax revenue to the government went up. (No wonder we were in the black!) The Congressional act of the 70s resulted in a great boost to the U.S. economy in the 80s and 90s, and more income to the government!
Didn't they care that people were buying more than they could afford? They encouraged it! In fact, the government mandated it! If people had to work additional jobs to keep their homes, it would provide more tax revenue for the government in the form of taxes on income, child care services, restaurant and other convenience purchases, etc.
Inflation is good for government. Deflation is the end of the government's power over the people.
Everything that is enacted by the leadership is designed to feed the beast. The majority of the proletariate will always believe that more is better. When prices always go up, everything is wonderful - especially for the government. The people cry out for more money and the government smiles. The government offers free food, housing, phones, etc., to those in need and feeds on the illusion of something for nothing. As each demagogue promises more, the people must bear the tax burden. This assures the complete destruction of the society that embraces this perversion.
This is the Fed's strategy from the moment of the inception of the U.S. It's introduction was attempted from the moment the colonies wanted independence from Great Britain. It took less than 150 years for them to win.
Those who espouse that the government (which is really to say, 'taxpayers') cannot possibly provide the needs and desires of citizen are called uncompassionate, judgmental, hate mongers, and evil. Can't you see that the introduction of these labels for anyone who believes as I do - that the government and media manipulate the facts and use envy, hatred, and divisiveness to create passion - is part of their diversion agenda? When did the definition of a conspiracy theorist become someone who is insane? If that were the case, then Woodward and Bernstein would have been laughed out of Washington - and they had less evidence than I do (as do others who look for the historical chain).
While those behind the scenes plan all this destruction, the Fed secretly reroutes our hard-earned money to those who desire the demise of the Republic - all without the citizens of the Republic being aware of what is happening.
Our elected officials - 'servants of the people' - have sold us all into slavery. Whether you are rich and poor. No matter where you live or what color your skin. No world union can occur with a strong United States of America, a dollar as the world currency, and the Constitutional freedoms we used to enjoy.
But, we are aware! And, our numbers are growing. Compared with an internet search four years ago, I know this to be true! What are you going to do about it?
What would those of the U.S. revolution have done?
“Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof.”
The Federal Reserve [Fed] was not intended by Congress to be independent in its form and function. When first created in 1914, the Secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency had automatic memberships in the Fed, and the president was responsible for appointing three members of the five member Board, subject to Senate approval . However, 'concern' by Board members over the possible conflict of interest this close relationship to the Treasury might create and the possible influence the governmental appointments might have over the setting of monetary policy, resulted in nefarious changes that would result in power over the nation being held by a few select Board members. First, the Board suggested that the Federal Reserve Board meet outside Washington to discourage the secretary of the Treasury and comptroller from attending.
The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank. Although the chairman of the Fed is appointed, and the appointment originally required approval by the Senate, the decisions of the Fed do not have to be ratified by Congress. Buried in the original legislation was language granting of total power over the monetary policies of all U.S. banks. In the original 1913 law, Section 30, states: 'The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.' The language does not say to whom the rights to amend or alter or repeal FRA are given. Was this an oversight? Or, was it intentional.
Fed only authorized for one, 20-year period, without renewal.
In Section 341, Second, it states the Fed: 'To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.' It should have been dissolved in 1933, according to the law. Franklin. D. Roosevelt was President. The Fed was not terminated in 1933, nor was the FRA reauthorized at that time or any time since, other than the implied approval given by the Sarbanese-Oxley Act of 2002.
As a result of the Board's concerns given above, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1935, eliminating the requirement for the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller to serve on the Board. [The Act also renamed the Federal Reserve Board as the Board of Governors and increased the number of Board members to seven.]
Thomas Jefferson's warning had come to pass. Shame on our representatives - the servants of the People - and those whose great desire it was and is to place the American public and the world in servanthood to themselves. Don't believe me? Read on.
FRA language distances itself from the government and rights of the people to hold it accountable, and confers upon it the right to hold assets, as a non-governmental agency, but has indemnities identical to any government agency:
'No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or a director of a Federal reserve bank. [This means that no member of Congress can attend a meeting to see what is being discussed. A/K/A: Lack of accountability!] (12 USC 3019). Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the Income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.' The Fed members make money on the backs of American citizens and pay no taxes on the income earned. Is this Constitutional?
The Fed has positioned itself above the Congress; and, therefore, the people of this nation as King. And, guess who the serfs are? The original intent of our founders was that the government be a servant to the people. Over time, however, the roles have been reversed.
According to Section 25 of the FRA, the United States government has no formal control over the foreign operations of the Fed or its member banks and the Fed is exempt from taxation. This institution and its Board members are independent: independent of audits, independent of congressional supervision, and independent of the American voter.
Despite the Fed's claims to be an independent entity, the Fed was enacted as a 'federal agency', by Congress and should be subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Yet, Congress gave the Fed autonomy to carry out its responsibilities insulated from political pressure. Each of the Fed's three parts – the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee – operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed's core responsibilities. But, who decides those responsibilities - the Fed. Members of the Board of Governors are as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, though the term is shorter, and unlike the Supreme Court Justices who make decisions in respect to the Constitution, the Fed answers to no one. The Fed makes and enacts its own policy, irrespective of the Constitution.
The danger here is that, obviously, the plan of the Fed is not in the interests of the United States of America.
As the nation's central bank, the Fed derives its authority from and is subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. It can be terminated. The Congressional oversight committee periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities. But, as Alan Greenspan confirmed in his interview by Jim Lehrer, the Fed's does not answer to Congress. Fed decisions do not have to be ratified by Congress, it does not receive general funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. (The Fed is financially independent.)
[See Fed History - Button below]
George Bush presided over a minor change in the Federal Reserve Act. The Sarbanes-OxleyAct (SOX) was passed in 2002 and Congress again failed to deal with the Fed. Bush managed to keep all discussion and changes confined to reporting requirements for financial institutions. Bush knows very well who he serves, and he really serves his master well.
Few grasped the significance of Alan Greenspan being knighted on September 26, 2002, by the Queen of England. Was it a reward for preventing any real discussion, or change, of the Fed during the Sarbanes-Oxley Act debates? Had an American President been knighted, serious questions would have arisen.
The Fed's strategy: to accumulate all wealth and power through the technique of currency devaluation.
Why would the Fed want the demise of the United States it 'serves?'
To understand the answer to this question, you must understand the Fed's construction:
Congress established 12 regional [Federal] Reserve Banks as operating arms of the nation's central banking system. These regional Reserve Banks are organized much like private corporations issuing shares of stock to member banks. Ownership of a certain amount of stock in the Reserve Banks is a condition of membership in the Fed system. But, it doesn't matter that foreign governments and banks own significant interests in some member banks of the Reserve Banks and thus the Fed. Therefore, the Fed is partially foreign-owned. But the exact ownership shares of the Fed are concealed; and, until Congress makes the Fed subject to the Freedom of Information Act, we will never know to what extent the Fed is foreign-owned.
There is no more effective method of destroying a society than through currency debasement (John Maynard Keynes). The Fed devalues the currency to take its cut, and guarantee that the government has a tax base available to feed its bureaucratic family," (Charles Krautkramer) making every citizen of the United States a slave to the Fed. On July 1, 1914, a few months prior to the Fed beginning operation, the national debt of the U.S. was $2.9 billion. Today, it is more than 5,000 times larger.
The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2% of its value since 1900. Almost all of that loss has occurred since the Fed was established.
Do you think inflation is necessary? Even good? (As Mr. Bernanke put it.)
From a February 6, 2012, article:
'The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level. [Inflation]
'An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.'
'The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971. The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.' [The Fed doesn't have a mandate concerning employment.]
Read the full article at Forbes.
More is not necessarily better. Let's take, as an example, the minimum wage. An increase in a large number of people's incomes via increasing the minimum wage results in tax increases. A percentage of people would also end up in a higher tax bracket, but all will bear an increase in the amount of payroll tax that results. Price increases on goods and services resulting from higher employee costs may also be a result (not from every payroll increase, but at different points). And, price increases result in sales tax increases, as well. Further, social security and other taxes paid on incomes would go up. This is good for whom? The government.
Let's go a step further and analyze the last real estate bubble and its bust. It was touted as an American 'right' to own a home; and, as a result of 1970s Congressional actions, home loans to lower income citizens were required of lending institutions (obviously, regardless of ability to pay). If the institutions did not make a percentage of these loans out of the total amount (not number of loans, but dollar amount loaned) of loans proffered, they would lose access to Fed funds. The institutions complied and a housing bubble resulted. Housing prices went 'through the roof!' The major boost in home demand, and resulting boost in home prices, resulted in increased property taxes. Demand for goods and services to build new homes resulted in increased revenue for the government, as well. Incomes rose to keep up with the cost of housing, so tax revenue to the government went up. (No wonder we were in the black!) The Congressional act of the 70s resulted in a great boost to the U.S. economy in the 80s and 90s, and more income to the government!
Didn't they care that people were buying more than they could afford? They encouraged it! In fact, the government mandated it! If people had to work additional jobs to keep their homes, it would provide more tax revenue for the government in the form of taxes on income, child care services, restaurant and other convenience purchases, etc.
Inflation is good for government. Deflation is the end of the government's power over the people.
Everything that is enacted by the leadership is designed to feed the beast. The majority of the proletariate will always believe that more is better. When prices always go up, everything is wonderful - especially for the government. The people cry out for more money and the government smiles. The government offers free food, housing, phones, etc., to those in need and feeds on the illusion of something for nothing. As each demagogue promises more, the people must bear the tax burden. This assures the complete destruction of the society that embraces this perversion.
This is the Fed's strategy from the moment of the inception of the U.S. It's introduction was attempted from the moment the colonies wanted independence from Great Britain. It took less than 150 years for them to win.
Those who espouse that the government (which is really to say, 'taxpayers') cannot possibly provide the needs and desires of citizen are called uncompassionate, judgmental, hate mongers, and evil. Can't you see that the introduction of these labels for anyone who believes as I do - that the government and media manipulate the facts and use envy, hatred, and divisiveness to create passion - is part of their diversion agenda? When did the definition of a conspiracy theorist become someone who is insane? If that were the case, then Woodward and Bernstein would have been laughed out of Washington - and they had less evidence than I do (as do others who look for the historical chain).
While those behind the scenes plan all this destruction, the Fed secretly reroutes our hard-earned money to those who desire the demise of the Republic - all without the citizens of the Republic being aware of what is happening.
Our elected officials - 'servants of the people' - have sold us all into slavery. Whether you are rich and poor. No matter where you live or what color your skin. No world union can occur with a strong United States of America, a dollar as the world currency, and the Constitutional freedoms we used to enjoy.
But, we are aware! And, our numbers are growing. Compared with an internet search four years ago, I know this to be true! What are you going to do about it?
What would those of the U.S. revolution have done?
Proudly powered by Weebly