It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Audit the Fed Passes House

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Seems like liberty may not be dead quite yet. Seems like the house has passed H.R 24 "Audit the Fed". Hopefully we may actually get this signed into action, and see what is hiding behind those Fed books.


The House on Wednesday passed legislation to audit the Federal Reserve System.

Passed 333-92, the bill would require the comptroller general to conduct an audit of the Federal Reserve's board of governors and banks within one year and submit a report to Congress on the findings. A total of 106 Democrats joined all but one Republican in support of the measure.

A version of the bill sponsored by then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) passed in 2012 by a vote of 327-98. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.



Article
edit on 18-9-2014 by Emerys because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Emerys

So, if my math is right, the Democrats voted for the audit 106 -91. That means 46% of the Democrats didn't want an audit, and less than half of one percent of the Republicans didn't want one.

How can people say there's no difference between the parties? If there's one huge domestic problem identified by ATSers, it's the Federal Reserve. Here's a cheer for those that called for an audit.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I wonder how the the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted?

But 91 Nays by Democrats is suspicious enough to ring loud bells.



Now let's see what Harry Reid does along with his cohorts and cronies.




posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Thing is, not the first time the Fed would have been audited and the last time exposed massive problems with major banks and corporations yet, nothing was done. The problem is, nothing will be done this time either, no matter what it shows.

The fact is that our government is so corrupt, so out of bounds of the law and the Constitution that it has become a house of cards. If you pull one of those corrupt cards, the rest will all come crashing down on eachother. The nature of power and those that possess it is not to implode on itself and that being the case, I feel that this bid is slightly disingenuous.

Call me cynical but my perception of the country and it's moral and legal ineptitude concerning government is from all I have seen and heard this last decade, spot on.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I wonder how the the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted?

But 91 Nays by Democrats is suspicious enough to ring loud bells.



Now let's see what Harry Reid does along with his cohorts and cronies.




The truth is, it isn't a do nothing congress its a do nothing Harry Reid, he has held over two hundred items from the floor of the senate from a vote. Democrats just have a better marketing arm in the MSM. They have repeated the lie so many times people believe it.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This will be interesting to see just how hypocritical Harry Reid really is.

Just 19 years ago he sounded like Ron Paul.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLieWeLive

I really hope this gets passed into law. The Fed has every right to be audited. They use taxpayer money with unlimited control and with no recourse.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Emerys

I agree but this has been fought tooth and nail for a long time and now that it may come to fruition kinda alarms me.
I think the collapse of the dollar is right around the corner and this may be their way of letting all of us know it right before it happens.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I too hope it passes. I am a little afraid of what the consequences would be if the audit proves that some of the accusations are true. For example, the gold that they were supposed to be holding for settlements between trading nations in the NY Fed Reserve Bank. When Germany wanted theirs back, they couldn't deliver and even made the first agreed upon payment only half of the agreed amount. Also, the gold bars that were found to be tungsten with gold outside during an assay test from a shipment of Gold from the Fed.

This could blow the lid off a can of worms so big that it could cause great economic consequences and possibly even worse over what the Fed has done. What happens if the audit proves the Fed does not have the gold. Or many other things that have happened in cooking the books. Nothing would make me happier than ridding the world of this cancer, but the process could be devastating. I think that is why it hasn't been done yet. People in the government know that it would unravel the banking syndicate. And they should be held fully accountable. Perhaps that is why so many financial tycoons have committed suicide. It has to come out. They know it, we know it, and the government knows it. The audit if actually done right would be the lighting of the fuse imho.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Emerys

So, if my math is right, the Democrats voted for the audit 106 -91. That means 46% of the Democrats didn't want an audit, and less than half of one percent of the Republicans didn't want one.

How can people say there's no difference between the parties? If there's one huge domestic problem identified by ATSers, it's the Federal Reserve. Here's a cheer for those that called for an audit.


Your math seems to be lacking in completeness. What are the actual republican numbers that you 'figured' your .5% of republicans voted against. Very poor form.

Regardless the Senate will kill it.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FryeByrd,

I am sorry to disappoint you. The house is controlled by Republicans. With 435 total members, the Republicans have to have at least 218. From the OP:


A total of 106 Democrats joined all but one Republican in support of the measure.


1 out of over 200, means less than 1/2 of one percent.

Is that acceptable, or am I making a mistake?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

here's the vote stats....

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 504




posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Emerys

The "Audit the Fed Act of 2013" is desinated as H.R. 33. Introducted in 2013.

It is the associated bill H.R. 24 "Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013 that was voted on.

The OP or source has mixed the two up.


The legislative history can be seen here:

thomas.loc.gov...:HR00024:@@@X

The actual roll-call can be found here:

clerk.house.gov...

The actual republican votes were 227 yeas and 1 nay which is in fact .43% of repubican votes cast.

Very sloppy all around.

And this was a vote to 'suspend the rules' and Pass as Amended. "Suspending Rules" is a republican tactic, suspend, ignore.

I know nothing about the legislation but SOP seems to be that most legislation goes to the Senate to die.

Looking at the acutal legislation; the amended legislation and debate: thomas.loc.gov...:FLD001:H57589

I would question these clauses:



(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 714 of title 31, United States Code, or any other provision of law, the Comptroller General shall complete an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) of such section 714 within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.


12 months to plan and execute a complete audit on a insitituion of this magnetude seems very short. Then they only provide for 3 months to prepare the actual report after the 12 month audit window.

You want a thorough audit of an institution that will try to legally block every action of the Comptoller Generals office - not going to happend in 12 months. That would be my objection.

Now the formal objection:

From Mr. Cummings:


The Oversight Committee has not held a single hearing or heard a single witness regarding the far-reaching consequences that passage of this legislation could have. I oppose this legislation, and I urge Members to vote against it.



I think this is politics as usual grandstanding.









edit on 18-9-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
LOL at the top of that site:

"Trending: ISIS, Ebola, Hillary Clinton... ' - All government-made horrors of one kind or another.

As far as the Fed goes, expect major economic market turbulence if it is audited; Paul Craig Roberts said that there was no gold left in Fort Knox, it was all 'loaned' away years ago. Seems like something a former Asst. Treasury Secretary would be clear on.
edit on 1031119pmThursdayf31Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:31:10 -0500America/Chicago by signalfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

Thank you, I'm glad to see that my math was accurate.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

You are not making a factual mistake but an expositional one where in you compare Apples (Dems) - Raw vote numbers (Dem) to Oranges (Reps) - percentage of nays to total Rep votes.

Honest mistake - probably, but confusing.

Students have always had trouble with ratio and proportion. In my day and it's even worse now. This type of 'reporting' only worsens comprehension of what is actually very simple and very factual.

Your numbers were all accurate as I took the time to demonstrate from an actual primary source.

Democratic 197 total votes

Yeas 106 - Nays 91 ------- of total Democratic votes: 54% yea; 46% nay

Republican 228 total votes

Yeas 227 - Nays 1 -------- of total Republican votes: .995% yea; .004 nay

Simple.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   

edit on 18-9-2014 by FyreByrd because: don't want to get sucked into this mess....



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Lets see how much gold is really in Fort Knox.

There have been stories for 30 years that the gold was gone.

then there was the gold plated tungsten bars that were claimed to have come from Fort Knox.


And here’s what the Chinese allegedly uncovered:

Roughly 15 years ago – during the Clinton Administration [think Robert Rubin, Sir Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers] – between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were allegedly manufactured by a very high-end, sophisticated refiner in the USA [more than 16 Thousand metric tonnes]. Subsequently, 640,000 of these tungsten blanks received their gold plating and WERE shipped to Ft. Knox and remain there to this day. I know folks who have copies of the original shipping docs with dates and exact weights of “tungsten” bars shipped to Ft. Knox.

viewzone.com...




top topics



 
13

log in

join