This fed audit is GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's watered down to damn near nothing....all thanks to BERNIE SANDERS.
The money that went to foreign banks will not be disclosed, nor will anything done before December 2007 and countless other information.
This is complete BS and the hard work of MANY people to get a full audit of the Federal Reserve has been wasted.
This is nothing to celebrate over. Bernie Sanders sold out the American people...along with everyone else who didn't vote for the Vitters
amendment.
I feel horrible for all the hard work people put into it...and we should all feel terrible for ourselves....this is a major win for the big banks and
a loss for the American people.
What a joke...it's all a DAMN JOKE.
Obama and the majority of the Senate now votes FOR protecting TBTF Banks.
DEMS and REPS...they are the ones who got the first Bailout going and now they PROTECT THEM.
People should be fricking OUTRAGED.
[edit on 11-5-2010 by David9176]
Senate Approves One-Time Audit of Federal Reserve Lending, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 11-5-2010 @ 01:46 PM by SonOfTheLawOfOne
IMO, once is better than not at all... but that's a long time from now to be able to further cook the books...
Reuters
Interesting that it is right around the November election time, which also corresponds to a dip in the Timewave (for the TWZ enthusiasts).
Interesting times indeed.
~Namaste
Reuters
As it sought to stabilize the banking sector and economies worldwide, the Fed pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into markets, expanding its balance sheet to more than $2 trillion. Under a measure approved by a vote of 96 to 0, the investigative arm of Congress would conduct a one-time audit of the central bank's emergency lending since December 2007. In addition, the Fed would be required to publicly disclose by December 1 of this year detailed information about which financial institutions it assisted with its lending.
Interesting that it is right around the November election time, which also corresponds to a dip in the Timewave (for the TWZ enthusiasts).
Interesting times indeed.
~Namaste
too bad it's only the Emergency Lending and Only those dealings since '07. 
reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 07:17 AM by ComeAndGetMe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While this is true, a true audit would lead the abolishment of the federal reserve.
If you know anything about Ron Paul, you know that this is what he wants. As well as the repeal of the 16th ammendment.
Just wish Tim Turner could get the ball rolling on the RAP!
While this is true, a true audit would lead the abolishment of the federal reserve.
If you know anything about Ron Paul, you know that this is what he wants. As well as the repeal of the 16th ammendment.
Just wish Tim Turner could get the ball rolling on the RAP!
reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 07:52 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ComeAndGetMe
First of all if Congress is pussyfooting around avoiding a "true audit" it has to be for good reason. Congress created the Fed and they have no damn intentions of ending the Fed. The People don't need an audit of the Fed in order to understand how bad the Fed is for them. As long as the matter of an audit is on the table, when the People have finally decided to that enough is enough and truly start demanding an end to the fed, then Congress will attempt to appease the People with an audit, and this will be hailed as a victory while everything remains business as usual and the Fed remains intact. This is the biggest problem with the audit ploy, and it is just a ploy.
Secondly, the 16th Amendment never placed any new burden of taxation on the people and Congress all ready had the complete and plenary power of income taxation before the passage of the 16th Amendment. That Amendment is merely a response to the Pollock Court. The SCOTUS, in the Pollock decision struck down the income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894 as unconstitutional because it viewed the income tax as a direct tax without any apportionment.
What the 16th Amendment did, and was explained in both the Brushaber and Stanton decisions, was to force the courts to view any non-apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. This was the purpose of the 16th Amendment, and repealing that Amendment now won't do a damn thing to change the structure of the so called personal income tax, frankly because the Pollock Court was an anomaly and most courts have shown a tendency to view income taxes as indirect taxes, because this is where income taxes inherently belong.
The purpose of imposing apportionment on direct taxes was to make it harder for Congress to do such a thing, and indeed it has worked, as no capitation tax has ever been passed, the federal government does not make a practice of taxing property, and income is certainly property. As an indirect tax, then what is being taxed is not property but some sort of specific activity named by legislation. Time and time again, the I.R.S. and many courts have declared that the income tax as legislated is a voluntary tax. They will, of course, engage in duplicity, explaining that what they mean by voluntary is they rely on people to truthfully report the amount of income earned, but they have covered their asses quite brilliantly.
The vast majority of people, including virtually all members of Congress, have no idea what the tax code is all about, and the people certainly haven't taken the time to read this legislation that they have foolishly agreed to assess their own liability in. Yet, there are few that could point to which activity they are involved in that would make them liable and therefore subject to this horrid tax. So again, the noble efforts, if they are noble, to repeal an Amendment that never placed any new burden of taxation on the people, is just more theatrics, smoke and mirrors.
I have stated that I admire Ron Paul for many things, but these two acts, that of pushing for an audit of a Federal Reserve that is clearly bad for the people and needs no audit for this to be understood, and the push for repealing an Amendment that wouldn't change a thing about how the tax code is enforced today is nothing more than empty rhetoric coming from a man of whom I expect much more from. I am not attacking Ron Paul, he is a politician and has to do what politicians do. I am attacking a Federal Reserve that has caused great damage at home and abroad, and attacking a tax code that not a soul understands. I am attacking what needs to be attacked, and have no interest in debating the merits of a politician. Any politician, including the great Ron Paul.
First of all if Congress is pussyfooting around avoiding a "true audit" it has to be for good reason. Congress created the Fed and they have no damn intentions of ending the Fed. The People don't need an audit of the Fed in order to understand how bad the Fed is for them. As long as the matter of an audit is on the table, when the People have finally decided to that enough is enough and truly start demanding an end to the fed, then Congress will attempt to appease the People with an audit, and this will be hailed as a victory while everything remains business as usual and the Fed remains intact. This is the biggest problem with the audit ploy, and it is just a ploy.
Secondly, the 16th Amendment never placed any new burden of taxation on the people and Congress all ready had the complete and plenary power of income taxation before the passage of the 16th Amendment. That Amendment is merely a response to the Pollock Court. The SCOTUS, in the Pollock decision struck down the income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894 as unconstitutional because it viewed the income tax as a direct tax without any apportionment.
What the 16th Amendment did, and was explained in both the Brushaber and Stanton decisions, was to force the courts to view any non-apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. This was the purpose of the 16th Amendment, and repealing that Amendment now won't do a damn thing to change the structure of the so called personal income tax, frankly because the Pollock Court was an anomaly and most courts have shown a tendency to view income taxes as indirect taxes, because this is where income taxes inherently belong.
The purpose of imposing apportionment on direct taxes was to make it harder for Congress to do such a thing, and indeed it has worked, as no capitation tax has ever been passed, the federal government does not make a practice of taxing property, and income is certainly property. As an indirect tax, then what is being taxed is not property but some sort of specific activity named by legislation. Time and time again, the I.R.S. and many courts have declared that the income tax as legislated is a voluntary tax. They will, of course, engage in duplicity, explaining that what they mean by voluntary is they rely on people to truthfully report the amount of income earned, but they have covered their asses quite brilliantly.
The vast majority of people, including virtually all members of Congress, have no idea what the tax code is all about, and the people certainly haven't taken the time to read this legislation that they have foolishly agreed to assess their own liability in. Yet, there are few that could point to which activity they are involved in that would make them liable and therefore subject to this horrid tax. So again, the noble efforts, if they are noble, to repeal an Amendment that never placed any new burden of taxation on the people, is just more theatrics, smoke and mirrors.
I have stated that I admire Ron Paul for many things, but these two acts, that of pushing for an audit of a Federal Reserve that is clearly bad for the people and needs no audit for this to be understood, and the push for repealing an Amendment that wouldn't change a thing about how the tax code is enforced today is nothing more than empty rhetoric coming from a man of whom I expect much more from. I am not attacking Ron Paul, he is a politician and has to do what politicians do. I am attacking a Federal Reserve that has caused great damage at home and abroad, and attacking a tax code that not a soul understands. I am attacking what needs to be attacked, and have no interest in debating the merits of a politician. Any politician, including the great Ron Paul.
reply posted on 13-5-2010 @ 10:51 AM by ComeAndGetMe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Sorry if I implied that you were attacking anything other than the federal reserve, as that was not my intention.
You say no on understands the tax code, while I agree, I would vow to say you have a decent understanding of it. And the history pretaining to it, the income portion at least, certainly more so than I. You say the current bill is smoke and mirrors, yet it seems you would like to see the fed abolished. Would you not say the the Paul Grayson bill is not a stepin the right direction, if not what do you propose? Certainly everyone that knows of the fed knows they are bad, but assumptions of the people are hardly enough to end the fed?
Sorry to assume anything, just trying to get the facts straight. Off to do some reading on your post, thanks for that by the way, very informative.
Edit to add: Sorry went back and read your first post, I'm assuming you are reffering to the Glass Owens bill AKA the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. If so are you familiar with section 30? Say you are able to define that this authority is reserved for congress, how do you propose to pass the repeal, when the current senate will not even audit the fed?
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
Sorry if I implied that you were attacking anything other than the federal reserve, as that was not my intention.
You say no on understands the tax code, while I agree, I would vow to say you have a decent understanding of it. And the history pretaining to it, the income portion at least, certainly more so than I. You say the current bill is smoke and mirrors, yet it seems you would like to see the fed abolished. Would you not say the the Paul Grayson bill is not a stepin the right direction, if not what do you propose? Certainly everyone that knows of the fed knows they are bad, but assumptions of the people are hardly enough to end the fed?
Sorry to assume anything, just trying to get the facts straight. Off to do some reading on your post, thanks for that by the way, very informative.
Edit to add: Sorry went back and read your first post, I'm assuming you are reffering to the Glass Owens bill AKA the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. If so are you familiar with section 30? Say you are able to define that this authority is reserved for congress, how do you propose to pass the repeal, when the current senate will not even audit the fed?
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/13/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
reply posted on 13-5-2010 @ 04:38 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ComeAndGetMe
You have asked some great questions, and I thank you very much for taking the time to look into the matter more. As to any implication you may have made, perhaps it was I who inferred this. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, and don't wish to seem as I am not. That said, I stop short of idolatry with any person and especially politicians. Ron Paul is a very important man in today's political climate, and his efforts on behalf of all the people, not just his own constituents, is nothing short of remarkable. Even so, I will continue to hold my high expectations of he and all of Congress for as long as I live.
As to any appearance that I may have a decent understanding of the tax code only comes from reading it over and over and over again, attempting to understand it. Certainly, in attempting to understanding it, I have stumbled upon case law regarding it, and have also stumbled upon much misinformation regarding it and the 16th Amendment. Indeed, the 16th Amendment has become the greatest magic act in the history of Congress. It is an artful piece of legislation, and I don't mean to offer that as a compliment to those brilliant magicians who have so cleverly engaged in misdirection that they have convinced that this Amendment actually did place some form of new burden of taxation on the people.
As to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or more appropriately the Glass-Owens Bill, I would like to first point out that it was Senator Nelson Aldrich who was the architect of both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, both of which were passed in 1913. Aldrich modeled the Federal Reserve Act after the European Model of that time, or in 1907 after that particular bank panic. The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to put an end to bank panics, or runs on banks, but as the Great Depression can attest to, the Federal Reserve did no such thing, and indeed, the Federal Reserved, in a large part, caused that depression.
The conversion of the recession of 1929 into a major catastrophe was wholly the fault of the federal government and the Federal Reserve, only a "quasi-public" agency run by private bankers. Recessions are ordinary business cycles, and history has shown us that the repeated cycles of recession are a normal part of what happens in any market place. It was the bad monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve, and Congress that caused this depression. In fact, there is perhaps no other piece of legislation that has acted in a way to cause the exact opposite effect of what it was intended to prevent than the Federal Reserve Act.
The policy of the Federal Reserve at that time led to a decline in the quantity of money, (paper money), almost by a third, and it was this decline that led directly to the destruction of many peoples savings in the banks. The Federal Reserve had the knowledge, power, and authority to prevent this, but did not, and instead turned an ordinary business cycle into a catastrophe. It is not as if there were not members of Congress and other officials who weren't aware of this and doing all they could to urge the Federal Reserve to act properly, there were, but the Federal Reserve acted as it did, and the Great Depression is what followed.
While there are historians and others who will tell a different story, it is Stan Friedman who, after years of study on the situation came to the conclusion I just digested into a few paragraphs, but what is telling are the words of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve now, at a conference to honor Friedman in 2008:
Of course, the Federal Reserve has not engaged in any contractions since, but instead has engaged in the opposite, and through the creation of fiat money, have expanded the money system, simply printing money out of thin air. It is this creation of fiat money that has largely caused much of the problems the U.S. faces today. Where the contraction of money between 1929 and 1933 wiped out the savings of many people then, today there is no incentive to save at all when the interest rates are suppressed while the rate of inflation continues to rise. Quite a crafty way to ensure that peoples savings won't be wiped out if left in a bank, just do what is necessary to discourage most people from saving.
If people are not using banks to amass wealth through savings, then why are the vast majority of people using banks at all? It is, of course, to be a part of the credit scam that has placed so many in debt, and in spite of a 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery, too many people have gone into willing slavery by agreeing to debt they can never hope to pay off. The blame, while can be placed with the Federal Reserve, and that institution certainly needs to go, the blame belongs squarely with the American people who have elected to vote themselves free money at the expense of republic, and have used a credit system to collect items, rather than build wealth.
No, I do not believe Grayson is correct when he states this current Bill to audit the Fed is a step in the right direction, I believe it is a band-aid intended to keep a severed limb attached to its body. While most people instinctively understand the Federal Reserve is bad for the American people, they are also addicted to the consumerism and credit system that has led us to where we are.
You ask me what I would do, and in part, I am trying to do it here. We the People can not rely upon the very politicians that have created the monster by which we have enslaved ourselves to, and as you pointed out, if they won't even audit the Fed, what makes anyone think they would abolish them? Of course, the American People through out history have shown great defiance to abuse of power, and while perhaps one of those greatest defiance's was the rejection of the 18th Amendment as valid and enforceable, it is also sort of tragic that the American people will gladly defy a federal government when it comes to drinking alcohol, but won't defy them when it comes to building personal wealth.
Gold is money, and anyone purchasing gold a decade ago, has seen their wealth more than double. The dollar bill is not money any longer, it is fiat money, and worth far less today than it was a decade ago, and a decade ago it was worth far less than it was during the Great Depression. Today, gold is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, and if one can afford to purchase it, I believe it is still a very sound investment, however there are other commodities that can be purchased that hold more wealth than if one were to save paper money not worth a damn.
Further, waiting around for Congress, the POTUS, or even SCOTUS, to act on our behalf is pointless. Defiance of bad policy and legislation is an American tradition and should be embraced at every step by the American people. Many people find themselves doing business with banks simply because of a system set in place that virtually forces them to do business with banks. But what is virtual is not reality, and people can and should refuse to do business with, at the very least, large banking institutions. Even further, there was a time when people looking for work would walk into a business, interview with an owner or manager, make a simple contract and begin working, often getting paid at the end of the day or week in cash. Those days have been long over, but this is the fault of the American people who have allowed such a system to thrive.
Every person has the absolute right to contract, and a contract means all parties involved are in agreement to its terms. Of course, a contract can not be written if it is contrary to law, and here in lies the dilemma for many people. It is the belief that they must agree, as a term of this contract for employment, to also sign further government contracts in order to obtain employment. The tax code, and Social Security laws are used as the reason why people "must" sign these contracts, but "shall" is not "must" and when an employer is instructed by that code to "request" such signatures and provisions, "request" is not "demand", and of course, at no point ever has a private business owner or manager been authorized to make any person liable for a tax, and subject to the income tax laws.
This game of extortion, where business acts on behalf of the federal and state governments to be a tax collector, insisting their employees agree to a liability that they are in all likelihood not liable for, is a big part of the problem. Where the American people defied an Amendment and drank as much as they pleased, they refuse to defy a tax system so abhorrent to the tenets of our Constitutional republic, that it is incomprehensible. Where a bunch of rag tag colonists defied a tax on tea, (income tax at that time and for years to come afterward was nonexistent), today people discuss ways in which we can keep this income tax system in place and make it "more fair", as if a perpetual income tax is fair at all. People have the right to earn income and it is dubious that Congress has the authority to tax a right in perpetuity.
You have asked some great questions, and I thank you very much for taking the time to look into the matter more. As to any implication you may have made, perhaps it was I who inferred this. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, and don't wish to seem as I am not. That said, I stop short of idolatry with any person and especially politicians. Ron Paul is a very important man in today's political climate, and his efforts on behalf of all the people, not just his own constituents, is nothing short of remarkable. Even so, I will continue to hold my high expectations of he and all of Congress for as long as I live.
As to any appearance that I may have a decent understanding of the tax code only comes from reading it over and over and over again, attempting to understand it. Certainly, in attempting to understanding it, I have stumbled upon case law regarding it, and have also stumbled upon much misinformation regarding it and the 16th Amendment. Indeed, the 16th Amendment has become the greatest magic act in the history of Congress. It is an artful piece of legislation, and I don't mean to offer that as a compliment to those brilliant magicians who have so cleverly engaged in misdirection that they have convinced that this Amendment actually did place some form of new burden of taxation on the people.
As to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or more appropriately the Glass-Owens Bill, I would like to first point out that it was Senator Nelson Aldrich who was the architect of both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, both of which were passed in 1913. Aldrich modeled the Federal Reserve Act after the European Model of that time, or in 1907 after that particular bank panic. The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to put an end to bank panics, or runs on banks, but as the Great Depression can attest to, the Federal Reserve did no such thing, and indeed, the Federal Reserved, in a large part, caused that depression.
The conversion of the recession of 1929 into a major catastrophe was wholly the fault of the federal government and the Federal Reserve, only a "quasi-public" agency run by private bankers. Recessions are ordinary business cycles, and history has shown us that the repeated cycles of recession are a normal part of what happens in any market place. It was the bad monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve, and Congress that caused this depression. In fact, there is perhaps no other piece of legislation that has acted in a way to cause the exact opposite effect of what it was intended to prevent than the Federal Reserve Act.
The policy of the Federal Reserve at that time led to a decline in the quantity of money, (paper money), almost by a third, and it was this decline that led directly to the destruction of many peoples savings in the banks. The Federal Reserve had the knowledge, power, and authority to prevent this, but did not, and instead turned an ordinary business cycle into a catastrophe. It is not as if there were not members of Congress and other officials who weren't aware of this and doing all they could to urge the Federal Reserve to act properly, there were, but the Federal Reserve acted as it did, and the Great Depression is what followed.
While there are historians and others who will tell a different story, it is Stan Friedman who, after years of study on the situation came to the conclusion I just digested into a few paragraphs, but what is telling are the words of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve now, at a conference to honor Friedman in 2008:
Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33...
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
Of course, the Federal Reserve has not engaged in any contractions since, but instead has engaged in the opposite, and through the creation of fiat money, have expanded the money system, simply printing money out of thin air. It is this creation of fiat money that has largely caused much of the problems the U.S. faces today. Where the contraction of money between 1929 and 1933 wiped out the savings of many people then, today there is no incentive to save at all when the interest rates are suppressed while the rate of inflation continues to rise. Quite a crafty way to ensure that peoples savings won't be wiped out if left in a bank, just do what is necessary to discourage most people from saving.
If people are not using banks to amass wealth through savings, then why are the vast majority of people using banks at all? It is, of course, to be a part of the credit scam that has placed so many in debt, and in spite of a 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery, too many people have gone into willing slavery by agreeing to debt they can never hope to pay off. The blame, while can be placed with the Federal Reserve, and that institution certainly needs to go, the blame belongs squarely with the American people who have elected to vote themselves free money at the expense of republic, and have used a credit system to collect items, rather than build wealth.
No, I do not believe Grayson is correct when he states this current Bill to audit the Fed is a step in the right direction, I believe it is a band-aid intended to keep a severed limb attached to its body. While most people instinctively understand the Federal Reserve is bad for the American people, they are also addicted to the consumerism and credit system that has led us to where we are.
You ask me what I would do, and in part, I am trying to do it here. We the People can not rely upon the very politicians that have created the monster by which we have enslaved ourselves to, and as you pointed out, if they won't even audit the Fed, what makes anyone think they would abolish them? Of course, the American People through out history have shown great defiance to abuse of power, and while perhaps one of those greatest defiance's was the rejection of the 18th Amendment as valid and enforceable, it is also sort of tragic that the American people will gladly defy a federal government when it comes to drinking alcohol, but won't defy them when it comes to building personal wealth.
Gold is money, and anyone purchasing gold a decade ago, has seen their wealth more than double. The dollar bill is not money any longer, it is fiat money, and worth far less today than it was a decade ago, and a decade ago it was worth far less than it was during the Great Depression. Today, gold is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, and if one can afford to purchase it, I believe it is still a very sound investment, however there are other commodities that can be purchased that hold more wealth than if one were to save paper money not worth a damn.
Further, waiting around for Congress, the POTUS, or even SCOTUS, to act on our behalf is pointless. Defiance of bad policy and legislation is an American tradition and should be embraced at every step by the American people. Many people find themselves doing business with banks simply because of a system set in place that virtually forces them to do business with banks. But what is virtual is not reality, and people can and should refuse to do business with, at the very least, large banking institutions. Even further, there was a time when people looking for work would walk into a business, interview with an owner or manager, make a simple contract and begin working, often getting paid at the end of the day or week in cash. Those days have been long over, but this is the fault of the American people who have allowed such a system to thrive.
Every person has the absolute right to contract, and a contract means all parties involved are in agreement to its terms. Of course, a contract can not be written if it is contrary to law, and here in lies the dilemma for many people. It is the belief that they must agree, as a term of this contract for employment, to also sign further government contracts in order to obtain employment. The tax code, and Social Security laws are used as the reason why people "must" sign these contracts, but "shall" is not "must" and when an employer is instructed by that code to "request" such signatures and provisions, "request" is not "demand", and of course, at no point ever has a private business owner or manager been authorized to make any person liable for a tax, and subject to the income tax laws.
This game of extortion, where business acts on behalf of the federal and state governments to be a tax collector, insisting their employees agree to a liability that they are in all likelihood not liable for, is a big part of the problem. Where the American people defied an Amendment and drank as much as they pleased, they refuse to defy a tax system so abhorrent to the tenets of our Constitutional republic, that it is incomprehensible. Where a bunch of rag tag colonists defied a tax on tea, (income tax at that time and for years to come afterward was nonexistent), today people discuss ways in which we can keep this income tax system in place and make it "more fair", as if a perpetual income tax is fair at all. People have the right to earn income and it is dubious that Congress has the authority to tax a right in perpetuity.
reply posted on 15-5-2010 @ 07:19 AM by ComeAndGetMe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Just to clarify, the 13th ammendment never specificly abolished slavery. As I'm sure you already know. And I'm not so sure the ratified ammendment is very close to the original, in fact quite the opposite. Nor is it actually the *13th* But that's a whole 'nother topic of debate.
So it is your opinion that education is the only way?
The only way is an end to flat (paper) currency?
It is very interesting indeed. I will post a few links when I'm on a real computer for anyone interested in educating themselves on this matter.
Just to clarify, the 13th ammendment never specificly abolished slavery. As I'm sure you already know. And I'm not so sure the ratified ammendment is very close to the original, in fact quite the opposite. Nor is it actually the *13th* But that's a whole 'nother topic of debate.
So it is your opinion that education is the only way?
The only way is an end to flat (paper) currency?
It is very interesting indeed. I will post a few links when I'm on a real computer for anyone interested in educating themselves on this matter.
reply posted on 15-5-2010 @ 07:28 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ComeAndGetMe
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
A debased currency is a detriment to us all. Paper currency is fine as long as it is backed by real wealth. Fiat money is a disaster, and has never worked throughout history, and it is failing us miserably now.
I look forward to seeing those links.
So it is your opinion that education is the only way?
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
The only way is an end to flat (paper) currency?
A debased currency is a detriment to us all. Paper currency is fine as long as it is backed by real wealth. Fiat money is a disaster, and has never worked throughout history, and it is failing us miserably now.
I look forward to seeing those links.
reply posted on 16-5-2010 @ 01:26 PM by ComeAndGetMe
link
link
Two sites that I'm currently reading. A lot of info compiled in one place.
Here is a sovereignty manual.
SOVEREIGNTY FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL
Why the Gov't cant lawfully assess human beings with an income tax liability w/o their consent.
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
link
Two sites that I'm currently reading. A lot of info compiled in one place.
Here is a sovereignty manual.
SOVEREIGNTY FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL
Why the Gov't cant lawfully assess human beings with an income tax liability w/o their consent.
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
[edit on 5/16/2010 by ComeAndGetMe]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
Federal appeals court: Illinois cannot enforce ban on recording police officers
Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags
Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
Posted 16 days ago with 32 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 32 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
U.S. Bishops Prepare Catholics for Civil Disobedience ?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 39 minutes ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 39 minutes ago
Porn stars explain how they ended up with Bill Clinton in pictures Hillary eat your hear out!! W/pic
US Political Madness: 41 minutes ago
US Political Madness: 41 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Picture Shows How All Humans On Earth Would Fit Into One 900 Meter-Wide Ball
Fragile Earth: 10 hours ago, 47 flags
Fragile Earth: 10 hours ago, 47 flags
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 17 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 17 flags
Pole Shift Survival MotherLoad (14GB) of SURVIVAL information (PDFs)
Survival: 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Survival: 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Naked man killed by Police near MacArthur Causeway was 'eating' face off victim
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 14 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Picture Shows How All Humans On Earth Would Fit Into One 900 Meter-Wide Ball
Fragile Earth: 10 hours ago, 69 replies
Fragile Earth: 10 hours ago, 69 replies
Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 47 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 47 replies
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 44 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 44 replies
Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic
ATS Skunk Works: 16 hours ago, 43 replies
ATS Skunk Works: 16 hours ago, 43 replies
Naked man killed by Police near MacArthur Causeway was 'eating' face off victim
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 35 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 35 replies
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 34 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 34 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.005 seconds
Page processed in: 0.298 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.005 seconds
Page processed in: 0.298 seconds
