The Federal Reserve Bank Must Be Destroyed “Delanda est in Susidium Foederatum Bank”

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

People might want to take a "2nd look" at Kennedy's policies and EO 11110.

Executive Order 11110

Executive Order 11110 was issued by U.S. President John F. Kennedy on June 4, 1963.

This executive order delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the president's authority to issue silver certificates under the Thomas Amendment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended by the Gold Reserve Act. The order allowed the Secretary to issue silver certificates, if any were needed, during the transition period under President Kennedy's plan to eliminate Silver Certificates and use Federal Reserve Notes.

Hmmm.

I think Kennedy was just another NWO corporate executive.

originally posted by: jimmyx
ok smart guys....what would you replace it with?....and before you all start saying "gold standard"....do some research, go back to the 1800's, and see how the various U.S banking systems failed, and come up with something that wasn't tried. a little detail would be nice, since our financial system is massively larger, and more complex than it was back then.

Jimmy

The Federal Reserve Bank, per their correspondence with me is quite content with having their fiat money backed by our gold reserves.

-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>Sent: Apr 4, 2008 12:13 PM
>To: JTR************@Comcast.NET
>Subject: Response to your email concerning: Clarification
>
> Does the FRB hold claim to gold from the United States ‘Gold Reserves’ as collateral for debt incurred by the United
>States Government?
>
>Gold certificates are held by the Reserve Banks and are issued by the U.S. Treasury. These certificates
>are backed by the gold of the U.S. Treasury and the value of the gold certificates is fixed at $42 2/9 a fine troy
>ounce. The Federal Reserve uses these gold certificates along with other assets as collateral for Federal Reserve
>Notes (currency) in circulation.

You also may find this of interest.

-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984

"100% of what is collected ( Income Tax ) is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt
... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the
services taxpayers expect from government."

Per the FRB's Charter. Upon the elimination of the FRB all assets and liabilities would revert back to the Gov.
Contrary to popular belief China is NOT the largest holder of our Debt. The FRB owns almost fifty percent.
Because their assets far exceed their liabilities, the U.S. would instantly relieve themselves of approximately half
of our sixteen TRILLION dollar debt or eight Trillion is zeroed out.

YES ! Return to a Gold Silver backed currency- All would then view the Green Back as sound money vs fiat ( Fake ) money.
There is no where near enough Gold or Silver to back the fake money in circulation. Which is of no consequence, the illusion
of sound money is the attraction. There is no need to go back to the 1800's as and example. Simply look at the value of a dollar
prior to 1913 and how a dollar now has been devalued by the all mighty FRB.


Yes do away with the FRB ! Congress has the authority to do so however they LOVE the FRB. It is and endless supply of
fake money for them to spend like drunken sailors AND they don't have to raise taxes. Of course we ALL get screwed on the back end through interest on Debt money.

OP

What would the FRB do if threatened. They would flat line our economy. Even the thought of a full audit had Ben state they would
crash our economy. So what ! It will happen anyway as we continue down the FRB's path to ruin.

For me the proof is in the pudding. I no longer care $20's. I carry $100 bills. I can walk into 7/11, purchase a pak of gum for $1.49
and hand them a hundred dollar bill. They don't even blink. Cuss it ain't worth the paper it's printed on. Cheers

originally posted by: buster2010
I tend to side with Thomas Jefferson when it comes to central banks.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Jefferson said in a letter to John Taylor in 1816, “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Vice-President John Garner when referring to the international bankers, said: “You see, gentlemen, who owns the United States .”
It's time to shut down the Fed it never should have been established in the first place. May Woodrow Wilson burn in hell for enacting the Federal Reserve.

Spot on buster and we need to get busy choosing an alternate currency for the interim.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: arjunanda

I am always happy to see people speculating on how much better life would be without central banking.

We have a pretty good idea what it was like without central banking.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve System seems to be working so far, so those who want to destroy it need to make a strong case. And they aren't helping themselves with awful dog Latin.

How so?

From several Wikipedia articles:

Panic of 1785 - United States
Panic of 1792 - United States
Panic of 1796-1797 - Britain and United States
Panic of 1819, a U.S. recession with bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s first boom-to-bust economic cycle
Panic of 1837, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 5-year depression
Panic of 1857, a U.S. recession with bank failures
Long Depression (1873–1896)
*Panic of 1873, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 4-year depression
*Panic of 1884, United States and Europe
*Panic of 1893, a U.S. recession with bank failures
*Panic of 1896, acute U.S. recession
Panic of 1901, a U.S. economic recession that started a fight for financial control of the Northern Pacific Railway
Panic of 1907, a U.S. economic recession with bank failures
Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Great Depression, the worst systemic banking crisis of the 20th century (1929-1939)
Banking Act of 1933 (FDIC)
Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S.
1998 collapse of Long-Term Capital Management
Subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S. starting in 2007

Fewer bank failures are good for everybody, especially the middle class who keep their money in banks instead of real estate or factories or Van Goghs or whatever. Wiki also has an informative list of recessions in the US (probably largely cribbed from the NBER):

The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.

Shorter recessions, longer expansions. The table in the article also shows unemployment and GDP decline during most of the last century's recessions have been moderate compared to the pre-Fed era. Outside the internet echo chamber, very few people actually want to go back to the way things were.

originally posted by: jimmyx
ok smart guys....what would you replace it with?....and before you all start saying "gold standard"....do some research, go back to the 1800's, and see how the various U.S banking systems failed, and come up with something that wasn't tried. a little detail would be nice, since our financial system is massively larger, and more complex than it was back then.

Maybe it doesn't need that much change. Just don't loan us 10 dollars and expect us to pay 11 back when, at that juncture, only 10 dollars exist in circulation forcing isn't too much to ask for I think, for starters. Everything else could stay the same and that one improvement would do a lot. Then we change otber things that need change, one at a time, like baby steps...

I like your thinking 3n9m470, Keep it simple and take it slow and just be happy with incremental improvements. Yes it's true just removing the interest thing (Money From Money From Nothing) would do us a heck of a lot of good, we wouldn't need perpetual growth just to stay in one place IOW. Good Reply and A Star Arjunanda a reply to: 3n19m470

originally posted by: PrettyPlease1
a reply to: arjunanda

FED absolutely has to be destroyed

But they will take many billions down with them

Many millions had to die to destroy Hitler and Nazi Germany


FED destruction will take at least a billion

ok, that's fine.... however I want you personally to replace all my assets in gold bullion if you destroy the dollar....and I'll let you die while taking down the fed, since you are so committed to that effort

a reply to: 3n19m470

alright....so why then would I loan you 10 dollars in the first place, if I didn't get some type of benefit for doing it?....look I'm not happy with the fed either, but we should leave the anarchy, bloodbaths, and chaos to those middle eastern countries that have loved that type of thing for centuries.

Hi Jimmyx, Money is lent in the first place to bring forward consumption. IOW it negates the need for us to say save $40K to buy a car or a couple of hundred K to buy a house. It makes that sale possible now instead in the future and that in and of it self is good reason to lend the money, not having to wait for your customer to have enough saved and maybe in the mean time using it on another item they either need or want more (thus you losing the sale altogether). But there's always Shakespeare's take on it " Neither a lender nor borrower be". Arjunanda. a reply to: jimmyx

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is an ATS thread made by BeTheFlow from a couple years ago. It's a compilation of quotes from our "leaders". . Here's an example.

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — President Woodrow Wilson, 1916

Woodrow Wilson is the president who signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act

a reply to: arjunanda

Senator Ted Cruz wants a complete audit of the feds. He wants to get rid of the IRS and the taxation without representation ;P that has been occurring. There would be a simpler, flat tax. Repeal Obamacare HELL YEAH!!!, do not tax the internet and block net neutrality. Immigration: Block any current effort that lets undocumented immigrants legally remain in the U.S. Common core: end it HELL YEAH!!!

...
The Budget and debt: Mandate a balanced budget.

Cruz supports a Constitutional amendment mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget. He argues that this is the best way to cut down deficits and the debt.

Corporations: Slash corporate tax rates to 15 percent. End some programs like the Export-Import bank and federal subsidies for renewable fuels.

In his speeches and writings, Cruz rails against what he calls “corporate welfare” from the government. As a specific example, he frequently points to the Export-Import bank. The bank is a federal program which helps foreign entities buy U.S. goods by insuring the purchase. Cruz sees it as a boon to large corporations which he believes do not need federal assistance. In addition, Cruz told voters in Iowa recently that he opposes subsidies for renewable fuels, including ethanol, because he believes the industry can compete without the federal funds.
...
www.pbs.org...

If only half of what he says was true, I would vote for him.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: 3n19m470

alright....so why then would I loan you 10 dollars in the first place, if I didn't get some type of benefit for doing it?....look I'm not happy with the fed either, but we should leave the anarchy, bloodbaths, and chaos to those middle eastern countries that have loved that type of thing for centuries.

[/quote

You shouldn't. You should not loan me $10 because it isn't yours to begin with. As a sovereign nation I should be able to print my own money without having to owe anything extra to begin with.

How can I even pay you 11 when only 10 exists? The answer is I would have to pay you something else that has value like my nations land and resources, so the inevitable conclusion is that you eventually own everything. Which amounts to theft. The theft of a nation by international bankers who are not loyal to any nation. This process assists them in creating a one world government. Which doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a bad thing, if the people of tbe world made that decision to unite willingly. But in this scenario it will undoubtedly be a bad thing because we are being forced into it And these corrupt heartless bastards will be in control or it all. They will effectively be the owners of the world after their pyramid scheme reaches its inevitable conclusion.

originally posted by: arjunanda
Hi Jimmyx, Money is lent in the first place to bring forward consumption. IOW it negates the need for us to say save $40K to buy a car or a couple of hundred K to buy a house. It makes that sale possible now instead in the future and that in and of it self is good reason to lend the money, not having to wait for your customer to have enough saved and maybe in the mean time using it on another item they either need or want more (thus you losing the sale altogether). But there's always Shakespeare's take on it " Neither a lender nor borrower be".

Arjunanda. a reply to: jimmyx

Right. I would have no problem borrowing money from my own government. But when my own government has to borrow money from a private&foreign entity, thats plain bs.

You are SO Right On That Man, The Constitution gives The Government The Power to create money as needed. But, through The Stupidity and Greed of Politicians that power was given to private banks to prey off the people here and charge us interest for the privilege re (Woodrow Wilson, 1913). Good Reply and A Star Arjunanda. a reply to: 3n19m470

If the sheep ever figured out wealth really goes from the 99 percentile to the one percentile not the other way round and that this institution is a major facilitator of that process things might change.