The FED: The scourge of a nation

The Federal Reserve is the United State's central banking institution which prints its money. It sounds all very official and as if run and governed by the government itself. It is not. The FED answers to no one and is privately owned, which therefore makes it an oligarchy.The inception of the FED is start to finish a scam, and possibly the greatest scam of all time, a scam that was warned about by the Framers of the Constitution.There is so much information concerning how it first perpetrated and details surrounding that to attempt to dissect it in one post would be impractically time consuming, and it is doubtful that anyone would read it because of its length.I therefore will make this a work in progress.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It's not the first time I've ever seen this claim. I've not come across a better system that isn't very much similar to the one you have already. I also fail to see how it is a scam. The Fed is a not-for profit private organisation with heavy government regulation (unless the government decides to deregulate it).There is an open thread where Buzsaw tried to convince us that the Fed was a terrible scam - but I think it is reasonable to assume that he failed to persuade us: Investing In Inflation

There is almost no oversight, and by how many congressional hearings come against the FED, it is because there is no government audits even though this bank is not government at all. As one person puts it, "It's about as federal as Federal Express." That just gives it the air of authority.What makes it worse is that it operates a fiat currency that has no intrinsic value and is backed by absolutely at all. As famous economist, who once worked for the FED declared, "This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."This is precisely why central banks on this level were warned about, because it's usury, not to mention an infringement upon Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution which says that nothing but gold and silver be coined as tender. "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance." --James Madison, "Father of the Bill of Rights"Despite this precedence, it smuggled in through the back door. The very, very wealthy of the US had already been usurped to some degree by Theodore Roosevelt who sought to limit their monopolistic powers. The country would have never approved the creation of the FED or its fiat currency if it knew what its entailments were.After the failure of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, it became apparent that the majority of Congress would never sign such a provision for its central banking. After secretive meetings about standing up a private yet centralized bank in the US, they set their eyes on President Woodrow Wilson. "I was as secretive, indeed I was as furtive as any conspirator. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would have been wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by CongressI do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System." - Frank VanderlipWilson only later regretted his decision as the worst thing ever.I am missing so much information here, that it would be much simpler simply for me to post a detailed documentary on the subject. I recommend that you watch the entire series. You should be aware that this documentary is a three part series which has a clear penchant for all things conspiracy. There are flat-out inaccuracies concerning their 9/11 segment and their religious segment.They are out to sell something themselves, and that is not lost on me. So expect a flare for the dramatic. I was extremely skeptical before. But after considerable investigation, I found most of their perceived exaggerations to be accurate. Part IPart 2Edit to add: I should add that the documentary claims that Louis McFadden, a strong opponent to the creation of the FED, was murdered under those pretenses. While I would agree that his death was certainly under suspicious circumstances, there is no concrete proof that he was murdered. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Your post is full of misinformation, vagueness and error. This is simply wrong. The Fed has been subject to many, many audits.No. Art. I Sec 10 says the States may not "emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...." It places no limitation on Congress's power. Well, that's true, even if nothing else in your post is. As I'm sure you must be aware, we don't argue websites here, we argue facts. I've lost more brain cells listening to tin foil hat documentaries than I care to. If you have some facts, please present those, along with sources supporting your facts. But I beg of you, please don't cite youtube videos as sources.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

1. This is an argument for more regulation not against the Fed.
2. Your youtube link doesn't mention a lack of oversight. It just says that the Fed loans money to banks and over-collaterilises on those loans and that they haven't lost money on those loans and that they don't release the details on which banks they have loaned. The reason for this latter was cut off. You don't explain why you think an elastic currency is worse than one based around an arbitrary metal. You think the amount of work the American people can do to increase wealth should be limited by the amount of metal that can be dug out of the ground or acquired by other means?From what I can tell there is more wealth in the world today than there is gold to represent it. Sounds like the perfect setup for a economy destroying bank rush. It doesn't matter if it got put in place by sacrificing babies and desecrating holy items - why is it a bad idea? Whenever I've tried to talk to people about this subject, I get bombarded with conspiracy type documentaries. It's almost as if there are no sober documentaries that explore this issue in a way that is favourable to the position that the Fed is the scourge of a nation.I don't need the entire case - just a good start would be nice. I've always thought that if you can't explain it to someone else, the chances are that you don't understand it adequately yourself. The good news is that if you try and explain it to me, maybe we'll both learn something.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Then feel free to be specific on the errors. Not forensic audits which any other government institution has to succumb to, which necessitates the proposedHR1207 bill.Why else do you think there are a litany of Congressional hearings against the FED for them transferring liquid loans all over the earth without ear or approval of Congress? Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act gives unprecedented access of this private industry the ability to dispense money wherever they see fit without Congressional oversight. That's a huge problem.I guess half of Congress composed of Democrats, Republicans, Indepedents, etc is foisting this conspiracy on us all???I realize that conspiracy wacko's also support this bill, which only undermines the legitimacy of the bill. While it annoys me to no end, it does not, however, negate its purpose and there is abundant Congressional hearings pressing the FED on this issue.Please tell me why you suppose that is?I'm curious as to why anyone would think it's a good idea for a private board of bankers to completely control the money supply of a nation. In case you think that it is not private, the Supreme Court has stated otherwise.Please review the opinion of the SCOTUS in Lewis v United States As it is described below, the Court cannot refer to it as being a government institution anymore than you could consider Boeing a government institution for creating aircraft used by the government:"It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."... The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses." In early colonial times, inflation threatened the first independent colonial currency, the Continental dollar, because of rampant counterfeiting which is what prompted the inclusion of the gold and silver clause into the United States Constitution so that the individual states could not issue bills of credit on its own.The problem is the money is not backed by anything other than inflation and circulation of more money. And since the Framers were explicit on that point, it serves to validate that what is going on now is incompatible with their vision.In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated: "The bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in a time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or it might withdraw its aid. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?""He was even explicit on it not being cited in the Constitution, saying, "The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale."Common sense then dictates that it is therefore evident by his language that NEVER were such things intended, but that he warned against them! Youtube is an indispensably vital tool for chronicling certain events that can't be seen in real time, i.e. CSPAN Congressional hearings. It is also much easier for compiled information to be given via visual/audio than to cite large swaths of information. It is also easier to go through your objections to it piecemeal than to write out in detail the last 400 years of the American economy. That's simply not feasible. What is feasible is presenting the documentation and responding to your rebuttals piecemeal.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Hi Hydro,I've looked at the videos a long time ago, it's part of the Zeitgeist movie.I did some research myself and found a lot of the stuff to be bogus. Now I'm not saying the FED is not corrupt, I think they are, but these particular videos jump on the New World Order conspiracy bandwagon and a lot of that is just hyped up BS.It also distracts from the issue of focusing on the real corruption, like control of the American worker. This is not true. Wilson's actual quote - (sorry it's a Salon article - lol) but it has links to the actual Wilson papers.Also, the Jekyll Island meeting, the video claims is where the Federal Reseve Act was written, and that's just not true. It also claims that Senator Aldrich drew up the plans for the Federal Reserve act, and again, that's not true. He was one of the proposals they looked at, but many others were looked at too. source

quote:

---

To that end, legislation was sponsored in 1913 by the two chairmen of House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat from Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat from Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called at the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including the Aldrich bill. However, unlike the Aldrich plan which gave controlling interest to private bankers with a small public presence, the new plan gave controlling interest to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, with a measure of autonomy to Reserve Banks which, for a period of time, had been allowed to set their district's own discount rate. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of private banks, the new Federal Reserve note would be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks would be mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that opposition to the proposed reserve system plan reversed itself and came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the more populist leaning Democrats.

​

After months of hearings, debates, votes and amendments, the proposed legislation, with 30 sections, was enacted as the Federal Reserve Act. The House, on December 22, 1913, agreed to the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not voting. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions.

---

Actually the facts surrounding his death show that he was not murdered.In fact, here you can find all of the arguments against everything in the video. Some of it is true, some of it is false, and it breaks it down step by step.On the McFadden murder:

quote:

---

Zeitgeist:McFadden assassinated?

​

Zeitgeist writes:

​

Not surprisingly, and after two previous assassination attempts, McFadden was poisoned at a banquet before he could push for the impeachment.

​

Mostly False

​

True - that McFadden had one firmly documented assassination attempt when someone shot at him as he as leaving a cab
False- that he died following after contracting of food poisoning at a public banquet (he survived)
False - that he was assassinated. McFadden died of heart failure while under doctors care for intestinal flu.
False - regarding "before he could push for impeachment". In 1932, McFadden introduced a motion for impeachment against Hoover which was voted down 361 to 8. In 1933, he introduced articles for impeachment against Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks, as well as some other officials. However, McFadden lost his re-election in 1934 and it never reached the floor.

---

While some of it is true, a lot of it is false. I actually enjoy the stuff on religion most.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I was. You have not been. Move goalposts much? More misinformation.First of all, this is not a SCOTUS opinion, as can be clearly seen in the opinion itself:

quote:

---

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

---

Second, this opinion discusses whether the Fed is a governmental agency within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the question the court had to answer was whether the Federal Government is civilly responsible for torts committed by employees of a Federal Reserve Bank. The court held it is not. This says absolutely nothing about what level of control or oversight the federal government has over the Federal Reserve. If you think it is relevant, you'll have to explain why.I'd also like to point out that the quote that you cite is not from the court opinion. Instead, it's commentary on someone else's conclusions based on the opinion. Those conclusions are not supported by anything actually in the opinion. I'm curious why you think they do. Well, all I can go by is what the sponsors of the bill say, but they seem to think that the reason is that the Federal Reserve needs more transparency. Of course, the fact that Congress wants more transparency is no proof at all that the Fed is doing anything wrong, it just means Congress wants better information about what it's doing. {AbE} What it certainly doesn't suggest is that those sponsors think that the Fed is "The Scourge of the Nation" or they'd be seeking its abolition. Well, I'll be delighted to see you actually do that.Edited by subbie, : As noted.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The underlying principle is against the FED, the corruption of the FED, and the virtually unlimited power it has to skate around laws governing the nation. There is a huge outpouring of non-partisan and bi-partisan support.Please take a look at the sponsors giving it overwhelming collaboration and consensus on the failings of the FED.Isn't that at least intriguing that so many reputable individuals are either calling for more transparency or the the total abolition of the FED? It's got to at least raise an eyebrow. I showed the video because Bernanke couldn't even answer basic questions about where half a trillion dollars went to. The world wonders why there is recession, and it is no wonder when reckless institutions such as the FED affect the global market. What they do in Washington even effects you and your monetary system. Something like this truly is a global problem, not just a domestic one for America. Precious metals have always, since time immemorial, carried with it intrinsic value. It may seem all arbitrary that precious metals be the standard of value and compensation for work, but then so is the representation of that value in the dollar, the rupee, the ruble, the euro, the pound, etc.The video details how fiat currency retains or creates its value. It is only valuable in the sense that you print more bills and circulate them. The problem is that it drives up inflation until the standard value of a dollar eventually winds up as worthless as a Peruvian peso.Going to the Gold Standard doesn't mean we have to go back to a time where we impractically horde and carry around gold schillings. It means that the money representing gold is of actual value and does not have collateral or debt already attached to it.Self-generating debt is what we should be avoiding, not perpetuating. That's because the Gold Standard supposedly causes deflation. The problem was not deflation, the problem is exactly the same in the Great Depression that is today with modern economic turmoil - bad lines of credit. Without the gold standard, the FED is free to inflate the currency without limit.And that is caused by printing more money than what should actually be in circulation. Think of it as money that doesn't exist, because that's exactly what it is!Then the president invents an Executive Order (6102) to make it illegal to own gold?!?!?! Seriously, what the fuck is that all about? There are a lot of articles, both web and magazine, as well as television and web documentaries. It is still a work in progress for me too. I started this undertaking about a year ago. Even as the son of a banker, I was never interested in economics. I'm still not, but it is to some extent unavoidable since money is what drives an economy. Whether we like it or not we are beholden to money as it is the only way for us to stay alive in modern society.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

How is the desire for more regulation a principle against the Fed? I don't see how it supports your position, though. People want more accountability and transparency after a major financial crisis. So what? It went to loans to banks. Which is one of the purposes of the Fed. Could you be specific as to how a central bank that enables banks to loan money to one another (or does the loaning itself) was a contributing factor to the recession? Yes- precious metals, tripods, paper, and work itself all carry value. I just don't see why representing wealth in gold is better than doing it the way we do. No. Not at all. The paper itself is mostly worthless and you don't create wealth by printing paper. You print paper in order to represent the amount of wealth the country has created through work. Only if you print more money than there is actual wealth. Inflation is not an inherently bad thing: if it didn't happen there would be no economic growth. But it still requries that you trust that the bank will give you gold. If you don't think the bank has enough gold, and others think likewise there will be a bank rush. And why is that a bad thing? If the wealth of the nation increases more than the gold reserves for representing that wealth - what do you suggest then? That people's work is now worth less than it was? Yes - printing more money that what should be in circulation is a bad thing. Did you read it? I know - that's how I can say I get bombarded with them.

Okay, I should not have spoken with hyperbole. Next time I will be sure to use "virtually" no oversight. I didn't say it had anything to do with the level of oversight, that was specifically for whether or not it is a private bank or run by the government. Despite the name "Federal Reserve," it literally is not in any sense a federal institution. One would expect it to fall under the Department of Treasury, yet it does not. That is what is called an "abstract" or an "overview." Along with it is attached the supporting documentation.

quote:

---

I'm curious as to why anyone would think it's a good idea for a private board of bankers to completely control the money supply of a nation.

---

"Any Federal reserve bank may, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, purchase and sell in the open market, at home or abroad, either from or to domestic or foreign banks, firms, corporations, or individuals, cable transfers and bankers' acceptances and bills of exchange of the kinds and maturities by this Act made eligible for rediscount, with or without the indorsement of a member bank." - Section 14 Federal Reserve ActThat means they can do whatever they want with US currency as long as the Federal Reserve Board approves. That obviously is circular because, again, they aren't part of the US government. We have three branches of government (judicial, executive, and legislative). They fall under neither of those but are part of a pseudo form of government, a fourth branch, if you will. There are some that want it abolished, most prominently Ron Paul. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Here's what another Woodrow Wilson had to say:

---

- xongsmith