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.

 

Federal Reserve Conspiracy Debunked for Good.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I thought it would be a good time to write this seeing as the GOVERNMENT TOOK CONTROL OF AIG recently.

The Fed is part of the government, just like the CIA. The CIA is the government, just like the Fed is the government, just like the USPS is the government. The Federal Government does not oversee day to day operations of these independent agencies.

They are all independent agencies, whose regulations become federal law (see U.S Code), and who do their "own thing" for the most part. That's probably where the confusion comes in, and where these people get off saying they are "privately owned."

They are certainly part of the government, but don't strictly fall under the three main branches. It certainly has private aspects, but those aspects are controlled BY the Federal Reserve system (i.e. government) The Federal Reserve (government) CONTROLS private banks. The Board of Governors are selected by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. All the Federal Reserve is, is a government overlay acting to control/regulate private banks. That just means it unifies and centralizes the nations member banks under one central authority - the government... governors who were appointed by the president.

All of the member banks are private, OF COURSE! You can start a bank if you want, and become a member!! Yay! (no, you don't have to be a Jew, or part of the Illuminatti - but maybe this is your best chance to get in
)

The member banks include national banks (federally chartered), state banks (state chartered) and there are also private nonmember banks, who are not members of the federal reserve system - like your new bank... but you should join the Federal Reserve systems and collect that nice dividend.

The national and state chartered PRIVATE banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, and are "leased" stock in the 12 federal reserve banks. This stock is not tangible and you can't do anything with the stock except collect a fixed dividend from the government based on how much of this "fiat stock" you "own". The more banks that join the system, they just give out more fiat stock and pay a small dividend. It's just as worthless as the fiat money. The only thing it is good for is to collect interest.

The Federal Reserve Banks ARE NOT FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES for the purposes of the FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT so they can not be sued as a federal instrumentality. They are however federal instrumentalities in many other regards - Lewis v. United States (The part about the Federal Tort Claims Act is ALWAYS left out on conspiracy sites that give quotes)

What happened was that Lewis, a federal employee, got hit by a van owned by a federal reserve bank and wanted to sue them. The court ruled:

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”"

FTCA=Federal Tort Claims Act.

The 12 Federal Reserve banks over overseen by a board of directors, 6 elected by the member banks (that includes a vote from YOUR NEW BANK) and 3 appointed by the board of governors who were appointed by the President of the United States. The directors decisions are subject to approval by the board of governors.



The District Court dismissed the case by ruling that the federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appeals court affirmed the decision.

nesara.org...


The federal reserve certainly isn't a federal agency.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is an independent agency, just like many many others.
en.wikipedia.org...



the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the [Federal Tort Claims] Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government.

Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

www.geocities.com...


From the same case:



The Reserve Banks [n]have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes.




The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.


and



Brink's Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351.


and



Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the [Federal Tort Claims] Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.


Done. They are OF COURSE Privately owned, like Airlines and Telecom!! This isn't a socialist country - but, they are FEDERALLY REGULATED just as everything else is.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   


I thought it would be a good time to write this seeing as the GOVERNMENT TOOK CONTROL OF AIG recently.


Today? Its still early here.




Done. They are OF COURSE Privately owned, like Airlines and Telecom!! This isn't a socialist country - but, they are FEDERALLY REGULATED just as everything else is


If this is the case, then it should seem that the blame for all the idiocy to do with the US Dollar should be on your Government. I doubt that is completely correct.
"Federally regulated" - im sure these regulations are easily combated if you are one of the wealthiest banking families.

When it is broken down, all the worlds central banks are owned by people/families with agenda's. Regulated or not, the people that fund these central banks have more power and influence than any government. Getting around regulations and caps is what they do - see current economic turmoil etc



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Almost everything is "FEDERALLY REGULATED" nowadays, right?

Or am I missing something?

Being Federally Regulated doesn't change the fact that the FED protects the interests of banking elite, economic powers and corporate will.

It doesn't matter how you paint this... it's always going to stink.


Peace



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I want what the OP is smoking, so I too can ignore the obvious financial frauds and make sweet logical magic like that.

I find it ironic, that the americans hate socialism yet a very high number of them owe their mortgage to the state. Talk about high taxation...



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Is it just me, or did you prove the conspiracy in your attempt to debunk it?

I mean really....Reading your own information proves the point you are trying to disprove. Kinda funny actually.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Very nice article, very well thought out, nicely explained.

Now show me where in the constitution it says that corporations IN ANY FORM can print money?

Can you? Thought not. Thus: epic fail.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


You were informed that the LHC is an alien communication device from a secret, but very trustworthy source, but... You've debunked the "FED conspiracy theory."

Well, thank god for that. Now that you've cleared those things up, I'll just go about my day.





posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
This is a load of crap.
Sorry.
This only shows they are privately owned which I thought everyone already knew?

Thanks for the research and effort though.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by buds84]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Very nice article, very well thought out, nicely explained.

Now show me where in the constitution it says that corporations IN ANY FORM can print money?

Can you? Thought not. Thus: epic fail.



Can't show you that. It seems you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution specifies only what the government can or cannot do. It does not say anything about what individuals or corporations (as legal persons) can or cannot do.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
You need to look into this way more, you aren't debunking you are making yourself look as though you haven't done the slightest bit of real research. The federal reserve is owned by the corporation... " The United States", not the run by the nation of governing people, that you seem to unwisely think we are. Furthermore this corporation you refer to as "our" country is nothing more than a show corporation owned by the I.M.F., who is in turn owned by the English, and them the great Vatican of Rome, along with a few distinct families that date back centuries.

Now your history man, don't spout babble you haven't even learned of yet!

Sorry to be an ass, but that's what I'm best at... calling it how I see it!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'm new here, but this is the 2nd time in a row I've seen the OP mention completely awful information.

The only way the "government" is taking over these things is if the fed "owns" the government.

All I see happening here is a private bank is using taxpayer money in order to buy more private banks. Where I'm from, we call that theft. But apparently, the media calls it a bailout?

[edit on 17-9-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Can't show you that. It seems you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution specifies only what the government can or cannot do. It does not say anything about what individuals or corporations (as legal persons) can or cannot do.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]


The constitution says that congress shall regulate gold and silver for the currency.

You are right that the constitution tells the congress what it can do. But anything not mentioned it is not supposed to be able to do. Such as giving away that job of regulating the currency to a private entity.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

You are right that the constitution tells the congress what it can do. But anything not mentioned it is not supposed to be able to do. Such as giving away that job of regulating the currency to a private entity.



Interesting. Taken to the logical extreme, wouldn't that mean that all laws which don't specifically address issues mentioned in the Constitution would be unconstitutional?

The Constitution doesn't mention paper money at all. Does that mean that U.S. Notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes) were never valid currency?

The Federal Reserve Act has been the law of the land for almost 100 years. Until it is repealed, on constitutional or other grounds, it will remain so, right or wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Interesting. Taken to the logical extreme, wouldn't that mean that all laws which don't specifically address issues mentioned in the Constitution would be unconstitutional?

The Constitution doesn't mention paper money at all. Does that mean that U.S. Notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes) were never valid currency?

The Federal Reserve Act has been the law of the land for almost 100 years. Until it is repealed, on constitutional or other grounds, it will remain so, right or wrong.


On a federal level that is correct. The 10th amendment is what provides this function. Also, as per the 9th amendment they can also not pass any laws which take away a previously given right. The states and local communities do have more things they can do.

Back when the constitution was being written there were 2 sides of the argument on the bill of rights. Neither side in this case was bad. 1 side of the argument argued that if we listed the rights, then we might someday be limited to just those basic rights. The other side argued that if we did not list the most important rights, that they might some day be taken away. Both very valid arguments.

So as a compromise they added the 9th and 10th amendments. Of course, today we live under a government of limited rights, just as they feared because the 10th amendment is basically ignored. If the 10th amendment was followed, we would live under a limited government as designed.

They use the general welfare clause in article 1, section 8 as the loophole to have all these special programs today. Which ignores the fact that the preamble of the constitution defines the general welfare as the amendments themselves and the general welfare clause is simply the part of the constitution which gives congress the power to uphold the amendments. It was until the early 1900's that this started to happen, with FDR etc. Which is why they had to add an amendment to ban alcohol. But they no longer do that, as it takes 2/3's majority to add an amendment.

As for monetary policy. This goes back to colonial scripts - which was the real reason for the revolutionary war. When we were colonies we created our own money, and only created the correct amount to handle trade. Inflation and such was kept in check, and the colonies prospered. The bank of england wasn't happy about it, and forced the colonies to get rid of them.

Now comes the war. We once again create our own currency, the continental dollar. However this time inflation was not kept in check and they just created money over and over again until the point where the dollar was no worth anything. It became virtually worthless. There is even a saying - as worthless as a continental dollar. They realized that when they did this, they were taking away the value and wealth of it's citizens.

To try and curve the amount of inflation the government can do they decided to tie the currency to gold and silver. As there is a limited amount of gold and silver, they can not just print up money out of thin air and take the wealth of the citizens. And that is the reason they have that particular clause in the constitution.

As congress only had permission in the constitution for gold and silver, they gave the job to a private bank which is not under the same regulations. And created the federal reserve act. Which is still unconstitutional, and was created in secret etc.

It's also why the dollar is allowed to have "In god we trust" on it, etc. Because they are a private bank, unlike what the OP says. Since it's not the government, they can do such.

Side note: The presidents who are on the dollars were all against central banks and federal reserves as well.

I could go on and in more detail, especially when it comes to the general welfare clause, but this should give you a general idea. Basically, our country was setup as a limited government, and today we live under a government of limited rights, and even those basic rights are being stripped away systematically.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skipper1975

Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?



No.
The Federal Reserve is neither a corporation nor privately owned.

Ranting is fine. But get your facts straight first.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Skipper1975

Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?



No.
The Federal Reserve is neither a corporation nor privately owned.

Ranting is fine. But get your facts straight first.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]


Prove it. Show me the GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT that runs the Federal Reserve. Show me the pay grades of the employees of the federal reserve. After all, I can find out the pay grades of various other federal employees.

If you are correct, it shouldn't take you too long to prove him wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea
Is it just me, or did you prove the conspiracy in your attempt to debunk it?

I mean really....Reading your own information proves the point you are trying to disprove. Kinda funny actually.


That just means that you assume a conspiracy and therefore see one in even the truth of the non-conspiracy.

e.g. Fluoride is actually healthy, but the CIA has created a propaganda campaign to remove it from water supplies so that our teeth rot and we suffer bad heath.

It's a mental disorder.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buds84
This is a load of crap.
Sorry.
This only shows they are privately owned which I thought everyone already knew?

Thanks for the research and effort though.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by buds84]


Yeah, sure buddy. The Federal Reserve System sounds really private to me:

1) Federally organized
2) Federally regulated
3) Federally funded
4) Federal Instrumentality for State Taxes
5) Federal Instrumentality for Service Contract Act
6) Created by Congress
7) Can be dissolved by Congress
8) Board of Governors appointed by the President
9) Chairman appointed by the President



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Skipper1975

Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?



No.
The Federal Reserve is neither a corporation nor privately owned.

Ranting is fine. But get your facts straight first.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]


Prove it. Show me the GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT that runs the Federal Reserve. Show me the pay grades of the employees of the federal reserve. After all, I can find out the pay grades of various other federal employees.

If you are correct, it shouldn't take you too long to prove him wrong.


Congress created the Federal Reserve System.

The President of the United States appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Board of Governors, who elect 3 of, and approve/regulate the actions of the other 6 elected Board of Directors at each Federal Reserve bank.

Think of it this way. There is a reason Congress created the Central Bank as an independent agency. That reason is Presidents... like President Bush. Imagine what he would do if he had the power to alter the money supply and change interest rates at will. Sure, the President can elect the Chairman, but he certainly can't control him.

If you would like someone like Bush in charge of monetary policy, I'm sure you'd also like the greatest depression ever, and WWIII at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join