We Were Warned. Our Parents didnt listen. It's time to pay

I find that you have given the OP and the referred quote some heavy support against the Fed Res. However, let's think about the ramifications of such move.

The purpose of the Federal Reserve was to take the control of monetary policy out of the hands of our Congress and put it into the hands of the leaders of the banking system. First question: who knows more about economics and has more to lose, Congress or the banks?

Congress can recommend or strongly support moves by the Federal Reserve, and they can examine the actions of the Fed Res, which is in effect a controlling mechanism. A similar situation exists with General Motors. Is it better to have Congress run General Motors, or is it better to be an outside influence? How many corporations and types of businesses should the Congress run? Do you trust your congressman with that responsibility? Is he/she elected with a full knowledge of how these systems operate and how best to operate them?

The existence of the Fed Res is a protection for the economy. It allows the economists (and those with the most to lose if something goes wrong) to analyze, recommend stable courses of action, and act upon elements of our economy that may best stabilize it. That being said, men do not know everything, and are subject to greed. The Fed Res has checks and balances within it, and outside of it. It is good that the citizens of the US are watching and questioning this system. It is not good to destroy a system that works very well under almost all circumstances.

As we go along, running into new problems, we find new solutions. As citizens we should allow this system of regulation to grow and learn all aspects of economic life, building better foundations as it progresses.

So, what will it be for you? Congress or Progress? I vote for watching them, checking and correcting occasionally, and letting the system work.
It works. Unfortunately, greed appears to have thrown a wrench into the economy....not the Fed Res. The US Treasury Dept should have been better at regulating the securities and loans systems.

The Bush administration called this to the attention of the Treasury department as early as 2001, and called it again over the years. What happened? Why did it happen? These are questions we need answered, not the dissolution of the Fed Res.

reply to post by Jim Scott

The federal reserve system was rigged from the start. Check out A PRIMER ON MONEY:Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives 1964


The Central Bankers WANT you to think their way is the only way. The Revoutionaries were well aware of the problems caused by the Central banks, they had been at it in Europe since the 16th century. That is why Congress is supposed to COIN money.

What are the Primary Goals of the Central banks? According to
According to “A history of the Federal Reserve 1913 to 1951” by Meltzer [pg 20]


the profits of the bank
avoidance of panic [bank runs that would destroy the bank and possibly injure/kill the banker]
the appropriate response to short term changes

G. Edward Griffin added more goals of the US Fed

Concentrate banking power in New York
prevent business from self-investing instead of borrowing
prevent competition
Pass banking losses off on the US tax payer (FDIC)

You will notice the Fed has failed miserably at the publicly stated goal of “Stablizing the Economy” and been very successful at the actual goals


President Wilson's Goal in 1913 at the time the Fed was created.
“It provides for a currency that expands when it is needed and contracts when it is not needed, a currency which comes into existence in response to the call of every man who can show a growing business and a concrete basis for extending credit to him, however obscure or prominent he may be, however big or little his business transactions. More than that the power to direct this system of credits is put into the hands of disinterested officers of the government its self who can make no money out of anything they do in connection with it. No group of bankers can get control; not one part of the country can concentrate the advantages and conveniences of the system upon itself for its own selfish advantage". (Wilson as quoted by kettl, 1986)

The system we have today was gradually modified until the Fed is autonomous and without government oversight or audit. Now we do not have a group of “disinterested officers of the government itself who can make no money out of anything they do in connection with it” instead we have a “group of bankers” in complete control “concentrating the advantages and conveniences of the system upon itself for its own selfish advantage.” The Federal Reserve has been amended more than 195 times since its founding.www.freedom.org...

The purpose of the Fed is to create money, make a profit and concentrate power.

Money is Created by Banks: Evidence Given by Graham Towers to Canadian Parliament: freedomprime.blogspot.com...

Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.

The banks were suposed to have a 25% reserve but now a reserve is no longer required. When a bank make a loan they create new money out of thin air. We trade our wealth that is our labor in return for the banks loan and put our land up for collateral. The banks in return make a computer entry period. Do you think that is a fair exchange???

I have one last topic that I want to talk to you about and then I'll get to the conclusion. This is an extremely important topic and it has to do with usury. In ancient times usury was defined as interest on a loan, any interest on any loan. In modern times that has been redefined to mean excessive interest on a loan. Moderate interest seems logical to us in recognition of the fact that if we work hard for our money, we save it and surrender its use for a period of time being a sacrifice on our part and then loan it to somebody else for their venture, we're entitled to a reasonable return on that sacrifice. A reasonable interest rate is a concept that very few people have problems with, it seems logical and fair.

But what is this thing called excessive interest? Thomas Edison said, "People who will not turn a shovel-full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work."

I wondered when I read that if Tom was exaggerating so I got my calculator out. I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect's fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that's fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!

I think it's time for a new definition of usury as follows: any interest on any loan of fiat money (meaning money made out of nothing). This example of a $100,000 home, as shocking as it is, producing $172,741 unearned interest, this is just a grain of sand in the Sahara. You have to multiply that by all the homes in America, by all of these hotels in America, all the high-rise buildings, all the factories, all the airplanes, automobiles, farm equipment, schools, everything, all the physical assets of America. You apply this same ratio and can you see it in your mind? We're talking about a river of unearned wealth that is so wide you can't even think of crossing it, flowing perpetually into the banking cartel. A dead short across the productive element of society. Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel. It's a staggering thought. www.bigeye.com...

reply to post by nickoli


Hey, I guess I opened a can of worms. Just to set things strait, I was upset over a post in particular that inferred military dissidence. All in this country have the right to state their dissagreement with our government.

I don't question the existence of conspiracies tied to many groups. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a member of ATS. I have seen military members with the Mason ring before. They advertise their allegence in the open. Needless to say I don't trust them; makes me wonder who they serve first.

I believe that many men a have a thirst for power, money being just a means to attain it. As you pointed out many presidents have tried to fight back only to fail. It seems that these groups of people are to well organized and established to conquer. There may be some of them on ATS as well.

There were some good candidates for the high office in past that I think might have made a difference, but we never elect them. Maybe Reps. and Dems. can forge a alliance similar to or part of the one Ron Paul had. You are right to say (by means of the info you provided) that these groups have us busy with political quarrels like the foolishness currently happening now. I just don't think that, as bad as things are, it warrants us to take up arms against anyone. I might say that the outcome could create a void that is filled with worst people.

reply to post by latinlover

I just don't think that, as bad as things are, it warrants us to take up arms against anyone. I might say that the outcome could create a void that is filled with worst people.

I agree. Now is the time to work at waking folks up and making plans for the next election. We also have to keep an eye on the bills headed for the house and senate and keep screaming bloody murder if they trample the Constitution.

Excellent thread; many many good points and critical information for people at all levels of awareness. However....

We all know that the answer is "to return to the constitution," in some form or fashion. That is, of course, true, BUT, the powers that be have no intention whatsoever of "returning to the constitution." They want the constitution dismantled and are proceeding with that plan. Look at Bush with the Military Commissions act, Patriot I and II; Look at the Obama admin's attack on the 1st amendment, not to mention the 2nd; when the flu really gets going, you can also kiss the 4th amendment goodbye.

So, given that the PTB will never allow a true return to constitutional government, what are the people to do? Voting doesn't work. Town hall meetings don't work. What's left?

Wardoc

reply to post by tjeffersonsghost


I think the best warning we were given was by JFK.
He clearly states that there is a secret group who control everything and that he (JFK) would do everything to stop it and get America back on track. Unfortunately they got rid of him before he could do anything.

Listen to his speech.

This has not only happened in every country in the world but has happened in a cyclicla pattern for ever and a day. Of course we are still beter off than in the 1700's wouldn't you agree?
Those in England in the 1400's were worse off than now, those in Africa in 2009 are worse off than those in America and a lot of people in America (not all) have not sufferred recently in the following essentials....
...they can still buy alcohol
...they can still by drugs
...they can still watch TV
...they can still buy Maccas
...they can still drive a car....

In my experience, and I'm in NZ, most of the poor (those who choose to accept it and live off welfare handouts) live better than some who work. I see them driving around in cars, smoking , drinking, having a great time...and who pays for that? I do with my taxes.

No my friend the poor are very well off. They eat and live yet do nothing.

I have had hundreds of thousands in my bank, lost it all and was worse off than the poor and not only was I earning $0 I had debt. Now I'm on my way back to having many many hundreds of thousands in my bank.
You do not need money to make money.
You need determination.

The poor are there and always will be (bibilcal statement from 2000 years ago) and in most cases those who wnat to change there way out of it can.

Besides all this, it is not money that determines wealth!

Great post, S&F for sure

"Attacks on McFadden's Life Reported"


Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:


Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."

/s/ Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist)

libertyforlife.com...

We definitely NEED an Andrew Jackson. When he left office, the government had a $440,000 surplus, that is the ONLY time in history our country was NOT in debt. I do not pay taxes, haven't in 6 years, many friends I know do not either. I know exactly how the "system" works and have been explaining it as simply as I can to all youth who want to learn the real story.

Financial Timeline;

libertyforlife.com...

Just think how truly free we would be if everyone woke up to everything that is going on. Remove your license plates from your property as that is an illegal tax. Cut up your drivers license as that is an illegal tax and restriction on your property rights and liberties. Wake up to all the enslavement tools being used, cut the chains that bind!!!!!!!

Besides all this, it is not money that determines wealth!

Money does not determine wealth. Money is what bankers give you in exchange for you wealth. In the USA it is worthless fiat Money manufactured out of thin air that is traded for your labor. When it is a loan you collateralize the debt (made out of thin air) with physical assets.. In a word money is legalized counterfeiting.

Wealth is labour, resources, land and the products produced.
Money is coin, paper currency and credit.

reply to post by jam321


I think america is running a debt on purpose. Theirs so many geniuses in this country and they have control and developed the stock market for so long. They are the innovators of modern living and fads they could think theyre way out this debt. But there going to have to shrink their infastructure clean up there country, work hard and do some honest business. You might be letting to much money out the country? I think your credit rating should show your behind in your payments.

Mr. McFadden uttered this speech and was dead a year later. JFK uttered similar words and was dead weeks later.

The time for words is over.