Ron Paul Says 1.3 Trillion Dollar Debt Owed To Federal Reserve Is Not Real! Amazing Plan To Save A T

I am sorry to post this message late, but I am not in the time zone as most people here. Hope it is no duplicate.

Regarding the fact the FED be private or public, I found an interesting article in Slate (dunno how serious they are though).
It is explained that FED is neither private nor public.
"It's a decentralized central bank, inside the government and independent from it."
however:
"It's isolated from partisan politics—board members serve 14-year terms—but it serves the public interest since it's ultimately accountable to the legislature."
(i.e. congress, right?)
www.slate.com...

Then it is interesting to have a look at the FED homepage:
"Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:
- conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
- supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
- maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
- providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system"

www.federalreserve.gov...

In times of great need preceding governments have done what is necessary to maintain prosperity. In WW11 the government seized certain manufacturing industries for the greater purpose.

In these times of great need why cant the existing government seize the federal reserve and all assets for the greater purpose?

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Originally posted by Common Good
Congradulations on your 100th flag.
Your welcome btw.

On Topic-

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, the Federal Reserve does in fact PRINT the money, but its the BORROWERS that actually CREATE IT by asking for the loan.
So in a sense, YES they (FED)does "print it", but the people/govt are the ones who CREATE it.
So yes, they are a private entity because their sole responsibility is the MANUFACTURING of money.
They are in the manufacturing/distribution buisness of money (so to speak).
Someone has to get paid by taking the time and having the resources to print those bills.

If Im wrong, I would really like a correction.

Well, you are mostly right, YOUR signature and your "birth certificate" create the authority to "print money". When you were born, a one million dollar bond was created in YOUR name in ALL CAPITAL letters and "traded" to the federal reserve ffor one million dollars "face value" of Federal Reserve Notes. Now these notes only cost 4 cents to print a $100 bill, so the mark up is incredible. the government gets $2500 worth of useless paper for $1 million dollars. Nice mark up huh. The federal reserve then sells and trades YOUR bond on the international stock market. They get things of actual tangible value FOR IT. Land, Oil, Diamonds, Gold, Silver and other precious metals and the like. So they tecnically give up YOUR bond to the highest bidder for tangible value. Nice profit isn't it?

The IMF are the ones doing this FOR the Rothschilds, Rockefellors, Kuhn-Loeb, Goldmann-Sachs and a few others. THIS is where social security checks come from, the IMF and NOT the federal government. YOU are a slave and yes you are traded. Every time you sign something WITH your actual signature, YOU are giving consent to print MORE money. Sign anything with the all CAPS name and they can not use it. Just your written cursive signature. Funny isn't it. THIS IS how it is done. And WE give consent WITHOUT the knowledge of doing so........beautiful SCAM isn't it!!!!!!

Go to Dunn and Bradstreet and type in your full name in ALL CAPS and see what you find. It is funny!!

To undo this BS read this!!!!!!!!!!!loveforlife.com.au...

The Promissory Note To Pay Our Debts
HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the promissory note (the promise of Abraham) the
government issued to balance the exchange to credit the people. The Promissory note is on
the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their
credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of
circulation. Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption.
This is your temporal saving grace. Under grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect
contract. Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a
contract null if it required the payment to be in substance, because the people didn't have
any money to pay with. All that must be done now is to discharge the liability. Pay and
discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments.
The word "pay" is equated with gold and silver, or something of substance like a first-born
lamb, which requires tangible work to be invested in it to remove the liability because an
execution must occur. The word "Discharge" is equated with paper, or even more basic,
simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents/angels
of heaven that get swiped clean. You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt
with a debt. What HJR-192 did was, remove the liability of an obligor (someone obligated to
pay a debt) by making it against Public Policy to pay debts. All that needs to be done now is
discharge the debit with an appropriate credit "dollar for dollar." Debt must be discharged
dollar for dollar in the same sense, as sin was discharged on the Cross. The moment a debt
exists, it must be written off. The catch is, we can't write off the debt because we are not in
possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so
we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary
can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper). Most feel
that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not
true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the
people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt. Ask
yourself the question, What are you charging me with? And how do you expect Me to pay?
Simply said, there is no money, plain and simple for me to make the payment with and on
top of that, if I were to pay, who is paying Me to pay that guy and who's paying that guy and
so on... Public Policy is the supercedious bond because it limits our liability to pay. It is the
more perfect contract because it operates on grace to pay our debts after we have done all
that we can. We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and
after we have done all we can, mercy and grace kick in being our exemption to make the
payment. Grace creates our exemption in the industrial society so long as we accept the
charge.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by fltcui
I love Ron Paul but.... the Federal Reserve is a private bank. It's not owned by the US. So why would a private bank tear up those bonds and lose the interest on them?
Correct me please if i'm incorrect.

Correct, the assumption seems to be that the Fed is part of the government, but it is not. The below really doesn't make any sense considering this fact:

In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself

My limited understanding is that the Fed as a private bank buys up government bonds and then sells them off later to recoup its investment. So in essence they would be telling a bank to burn all the investment bonds that it had purchased from the government while offering them nothing in return for doing so. That would be great if the they would be willing to do it, but it wouldn't exactly make good business sense to the Fed now, would it? LOL!

You're both right, and this fact is what Ron Paul would like to expose to the public. I recently saw an interview (i forgot when and where though...maybe Freedom Watch with the Judge) where he proposed this idea and even mentioned that if the FED were to refuse to cooperate, it would prove that the institution is privately owned and does not function for the benefit of the USA, something not many other than the awoken realize yet. So in a way, its a win-win situation no matter how the FED decides (if they were actually pressed to decide). Why? If the FED capitulates, then hurray for Ron gaining a political victory and hurray for the US economy for the time being, as we reduce the debt by 1.3 trillion$ while simultaneously splicing the amount of interest owed. If they refuse, it proves where their loyalty lies, and hurray for revolution on that day. Or at least we can still hope for it.

Wow Ron Paul never seizes to amaze me.

For some reason, it's starting to feel to good to be true.

Or maybe, this may be our first real candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

Originally posted by BiGGz
Wow Ron Paul never seizes to amaze me.

For some reason, it's starting to feel to good to be true.

Or maybe, this may be our first real candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

Ron Paul has NO CHANCE of becomming president....NONE!

I wish he did

The press ignores him and any positive news relating to him. MSM will ALWAYS depict him as a whack-job.

If for some incredable reason he should win the Republican nomination, you could expect TPTB in that organization would work behind the scenes to deny him the presidency.

You could also count on Dr Paul and members of his family being threatened during the course of his run for the office.

If, after overcomming all this and winning the election, he would never be inaugurated.

TPTB are so entrenched in the corrupt political system they will NEVER allow someone such as Ron Paul to take office.

""The Federal Reserve Bank is a quasi-scam. It was created along with a never-before seen "intermediate legal status" by virtue of having a Presidential appointment of it's chairperson - who is selected from a list of candidates the Bank itself provides. Do you know what other institutions have a "intermediate legal status" (or at least did)? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Interesting that all of America's "quasi" "intermediate legal status" "government" operations are so firmly entrenched within the worst economic downturns in our history.

Meanwhile the Fed postures itself as a 'supervisor' of economic transactions... a task which it seems to excel at failing.

Congress abdicated the central principle of sovereignty based upon control of currency and financial policy and allowed a collection of private citizens to monopolize both. This group of 'board members' are all private citizens.

We must judge the character of the Federal Reserve bank by it's actions... since it's establishment by the act of 1913, it has 'managed' our nation's economy through crisis after crisis; in each case ensuring that the member banks continuously maintained profit levels unmatched in history, especially during depressions and recessions, while the citizens foot the bill for every flight of fancy some economic priest has the political currency to peddle.

All the Fed has managed to accomplish is to privatize profit while distributing losses to the population from whom all wealth is derived.

By this reasoning we clearly must be prepared to retract the injudicious notion of the 'entity' we call the Fed as somehow operating for the benefit of the citizens... unless we are only concerned with the citizens who have enough money to pay politicians and media for their certification as "too big to fail" or maybe that they (the financial middlemen) are 'more equal' than others (who actually create wealth through labor and productivity.)"

Totally agree. Thomas Jefferson was right. Central bankers are a greater threat to our liberties than a standing army. Give them control of the monitary policies and they will enslave us.

If the government were to tear up it's debts to the FED it would ruin any reputation as a responsible debtor, thus who in the world would lend to the U.S after that?

Having said that, i'd like to see what happens.

Either way it's a master chess move from RP! So long as the story gets MSN traction and it finds a place in the public psyche, then the FED are screwed whichever way they move next. RP has almost checkmated them.

Lets see how much TPTB really control the media....

If RP gets his way, then the next big question will be what will fill the vacuum. If it's something even more malevolent than the FED then it'll come to pass that RP must've been playing for other side all along.

Originally posted by McGinty
If the government were to tear up it's debts to the FED it would ruin any reputation as a responsible debtor, thus who in the world would lend to the U.S after that?

So the Fed is owned essentially by the government, it is a quasi-independent agency of the government and someone is going to be upset if the government decides not to pay itself what it "owes" ....to itself?

That's like saying my credit rating is going to get screwed if I don't repay what I borrowed from my own private "stash"

reply to post by ModernAcademia


lol. I saw this coming 5 years ago.

When left with no other solution, a people can simply refuse to pay the debt.

Careful though. Improper operation can lead to a situation similar to when Hitler took power in Germany.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Hussein Obama will never do this - it is in direct contradiction with his stated goal of bankrupting the west and enslaving us all to the elites

Originally posted by hab22

"...All the Fed has managed to accomplish is to privatize profit while distributing losses to the population from whom all wealth is derived...

incredibly WELL PUT! Bravo!

Originally posted by expat2368

Originally posted by McGinty
If the government were to tear up it's debts to the FED it would ruin any reputation as a responsible debtor, thus who in the world would lend to the U.S after that?

So the Fed is owned essentially by the government, it is a quasi-independent agency of the government and someone is going to be upset if the government decides not to pay itself what it "owes" ....to itself?

That's like saying my credit rating is going to get screwed if I don't repay what I borrowed from my own private "stash"

So we theorists suspect the FED is not really part of the government, instead works for it's shareholders interests only. Yet the rest of the world - the power structures that may be called upon to lend to the U.S do not know this?

Of course they know the FED is truly a private organisation and if it's sacrificed by debts being abolished, would you thereafter lend your cash to the U.S.

You're correct if the FED is truly a part of the government working in the countries best interests. Do you really believe that?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


GOD, I have such a man crush on Ron Paul. He's amazing

reply to post by gorgi


The notes or dollar bills ARE NOT printed by the US govt per se. US govt employees work the presses but the notes are issued by the Federal Reserve.

The last time the US govt issued notes was under President John Kennedy. Furthermore the notes were backed by silver and redeemable for silver. As soon as he was murdered, the process was stopped and the Fed has been issuing all of the money ever since.

A five year old can put the pieces together. It could be no more obvious who has more power. Congress are treated as a nuisance. Presidents fear the Fed.

We must abolish the Fed. And jail the mobsters running it. Only Ron has the balls to do it. The media has not mentioned his name as a serious contender in weeks.

reply to post by watcher3339


I like this, well said, but when it was all done our children would thank us!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by getreadyalready


hahaha, I am definitely not a socialist and yes the USSR was a great example of why socialism is a failed enterprise. There are a few things that the government does do better though, like the military. For example, I stated that you can hire me to guard your water(watch/guard, whatever. lol) but so can the government in the form of a military. I also stated you should pay a higher percentage b/c you have stuff to guard and I don't. But, if this was left to private enterprise then the meager existence that I need to protect simply wouldn't be. If a foreign power decided to attack us then I would have to trust you to protect me as well as your stuff. Now, this sounds great, but in reality its exactly what the Feudal system was and while it could be efficient, it was certainly corrupt.

reply to post by defcon5


I love the example GetReadyAlready posts. I was astounded by the creation of the FED paying interest on deposits at the same time as there supposed stimulus to the banks. It had never been done before, it wasn't supposed to become a tool within the FED until 2011 but they moved the date up, and then they used it! So, in effect, banks could borrow money from the FED at 0% essentially, and then turn around and deposit it at the FED for something like 0.25%-0.5%! I sure wish I could do such an obvious arbitrage of my money! If the FED is paying interest, even a low amount, while loaning at a lower amount, why would any bank loan to a business or individual that might default when the FED guarantees a return with a 0% risk? Truly astounding!

They shot themselves in the foot when they tried this trickle down stuff. There is no gravity in the economy, it is absurd for them to think that money will fall to the bottom when its injected at the top. They equivocate demand to gravity, and it simply isn't reality. The problem was/is, it was claimed logically and on historical evidence from the Great Depression, although unsubstantiated in today's fast moving economy, that without the injection, allowing the gamblers to fail, there would/could have been a disastrous domino effect. Who knows if it would have been as bad as predicted since we bailed the gamblers out, but that was the claim.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Let me correct something I stated earlier, that virtually all startup businesses fail. In reality only about 17% fail after 5 years, Link. My point still stands however, and is addressed at the end of my response to you.

I am not even going to address the rest of your posts until you go read some stuff about supply side economics. It is the study and claim that reducing barriers to the supply side will stimulate the supply side to grow. SO, if we lower taxes on corporations, if we reduce barriers to entry(which does work), and so on, or if we take on an infant industry position(paying for upstarts or protecting young industry as we did with steel), or if we place stimulus money at the top and hope it trickles down. This was/is an interesting and useful concept that worked in the 80's, has its place in the economy as a whole, but just like every other theory it needs support from other theories and models as well. Here are some links for you to educate yourself:

www.econlib.org...
www.investopedia.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nytimes.com...

The idea you propose is kind of right, but totally incomplete. If producers produce, by supply-side theory, then demand will be stimulated, just like you pointed out with your pet rock example. But that is far too simple of an explanation. When in the arena of economics, we are talking about it as some sort of encouragement from an outside source to help a business exist long enough to take up a portion of the market share.

I am not telling you how you will spend your money, I am telling you that you won't have the choice on how you spend it. There is only so much money out there, and there is only so much demand out there. Your 1+1=2 couldn't say it more clearly. If every millionaire out there spends millions every year on startups then there will be a lot of failures if for no other reason than there is only so much market share to be had! This is not an economics model with the availability of infinite firms, its reality. Now, you could argue, as GetReadyAlready argues, that you can save your money for your descendants and family. That is an argument that I don't really have a reply too. I have been thinking of a response for that for days and am still a bit blank on it. Only that we may better serve our descendents with better infrastructure and that we need to encourage, sometimes with an M16 like our government does, investment into that infrastructure.

reply to post by zarp3333

All your predictions and problems would be put to rest by:
1. Tying the value of the dollar to a basket of commodities such as precious metals and currency.
2. Abolishing speculation on those currencies altogether.

The value of the dollar is already tied to a basket of commodities and currencies. Look at this link, and read about the consumer price index. That is essentially what we, and most other countries, already do.

But for clarification, are you saying that I am wrong and that you want to take our fiat money and tie it to other fiat money that also has no intrinsic value in order to revalue it? That is what we do, but does that make sense to you as an argument against me or that idea? I'm a bit confused by your statement here.

I totally agree that speculation on currency should be abolished completely. The problem is that people can still arbotrage it. If we made currency impossible to buy electronically without some good or service... no, people would find a way around that too. Its the system we live in and this would be virtually impossible to repair.

reply to post by zarp3333

The last time the US govt issued notes was under President John Kennedy. Furthermore the notes were backed by silver and redeemable for silver. As soon as he was murdered, the process was stopped and the Fed has been issuing all of the money ever since.

Almost.

Kennedy went a step further. He understood that even silver backing wasn't "necessary". After all, the Federal Reserve didn't back the trash they were pumping out with anything.

Kennedy needed "proof" back in the hands of the common man, that the Fed was unnecessary. If he could do that, then he could build a case that the Fed was actually a burden on the people, and should therefore be ended.

The Series of 1966 $100 denomination red seal notes, were the initial means chosen to put the proof into the hands of the people. Even though Kennedy was already dead when they were issued, he at least succeeded in getting the ball rolling, and these notes were in fact issued.

Today they're called "Assassination Notes" by currency collectors who know the story. They are somewhat rare, since they were no sooner issued, and then ordered to be taken back out of circulation, and destroyed.

Instead of "Federal Reserve Note", and even more importantly, instead of "Silver Certificate", all it said was, "United States Note".

It may not sound all that different, but here was a piece of paper that finally held the "truth", the simple truth that the US government could issue it's own currency, backed by nothing more than it's "good name", and perceived credit worthiness. No silver required! This at last was the apple-to-apple comparison that was needed to combat the Fed's lies and misinfo.

Presumably, had Kennedy lived, he could have mounted the pulpit, and easily pointed this out to the masses. They could literally reach into their pockets, and pull out the "proof" of the pudding.

A beautiful strategy, the Kennedy brothers weren't stupid, but apparently those who benefit from the Fed must have thought it was excellent strategy as well.

And this is key: This is STILL the kind of "strategy" that has the potential to defeat the Fed!

YES, they fired a vicious and bloody "warning" shot, we know they're serious, that they will kill anyone who stands in their way, but maybe we need to get serious too.

JR

If Ron Paul ever got close to sniffing the Presidency, suddenly he would have a heart attack or stroke

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Unfortunately, it's easier for a water laden camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for rich men to enter the kingdom of God..