Political Crossfire Forums

[Rhoades]

The FED is actually a private corporation? Our government borrows money from them, and then we have to pay back the interest throught the use of the income tax, which is actually unlawful? How the hell is this going on in America? Robodoon is right, I'm feeling kinda sick.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/21061/America_Freedom_to_Fascism_New_Trailer

[psholtz]

I believe that the Fed is also the only corporation in America not subject to taxes..

[Straudos]

The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.


Black budget anyone?

[Gremlin]

Silkheat wrote: Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.


Black budget anyone?


something has to pay for this... because it is largely off the record in the USG budget.

[Straudos]

The <10% is used primarily to pay operating costs. Is that what you are referring to?

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: The <10% is used primarily to pay operating costs. Is that what you are referring to?

Yeah, but what an operating cost. 1.8 billion to employees, plus an additional 6% tax free to stock holders.

[Straudos]

The federal reserve has a LOT of employees.

[Rhoades]

Gremlin wrote: Silkheat wrote: Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.


Black budget anyone?


something has to pay for this... because it is largely off the record in the USG budget.


If that defamation to america's sovereignty is built, you can bet it is going to be the target of extreme right wing terrorist attacks. i.e. people like Tim McVeigh

[Norrin Radd]

It is now an accepted fact that the Federal Reserve helped cause the Great deppression. While it can be debated how much of a role the FED played in that crisis, FDR's son in law actually told us the truth regarding their crimes, as have others, but the people don't want to hear the truth.

Some people refuse to look at the big picture.

In the decade before the big crash 1,200 business mergers swallowed up 6,000 independently owned companies. By 1929 just 200 corporations would control over half of American industry.

In his book entitled, "Baruch: The Public Years", money baron Bernard Baruch wrote, "Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the decision made by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in the spring of 1927, to cut the rediscount rate. Benjamin Strong, Governor of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England....At the time of the Bank's action I warned of its consequences....I felt that sooner or later the market had to break."

By making money cheap and easy to borrow, the Federal Reserve effectively created a bull market sending stocks soaring to artificially high levels. When the market was sufficiently out on a limb, the Fed raised interest rates, triggering a sell-off of stocks purchased on margin. In the panic that followed, the market lost $16 billion, a tremendous amount of money in those times.

Curtis Dall, member of the N.Y. stock exchange wrote in his book, "F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law", that the '29 stock market crash "was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers, triggered by the sudden shortage of call money in the New York money market." Not everyone lost money in the crash.

During the Depression Rep. Louis McFadden was chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency. In 1933 he said before Congress that the Crash of '29 "was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence....The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all."

The "boom and bust" cycle can be seen repeated at other times during this nation's history. There was a crash in 1907 which brought about the Federal Reserve in 1912.

“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, herein called the Fed. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United tates for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers...it controls all of foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man or body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed...the sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history...what King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us...when the Fed was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here...a superstate controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure”-Louis McFadden, US Congressman 1934

The crash of 1929 won the election for Roosevelt who used a compliant Congress in 1933 to abandon the gold standard and print worthless paper money. A desperate economic climate opened the way for the passage of more radical measures that would have never been considered in more prosperous times. Curtis Dall said of his father-in-law, Franklin Roosevelt, that "most of his thoughts, his political 'ammunition,' as it were, was carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One-World Money group."

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1996/08/economic_crash.html

[Norrin Radd]

double post

[arommel88]

Yep the Fed is private. It a shell game and the Fed is one of the empty shells!

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html

The fractional reserve system allows the banks to create money and charge interest on it out of nothing. You just need to be a member bank. What ever in the Fed is hiding in "expsenses" is nothing compared to this scam. It is "standard practise". Howerver the judge perished "somehow" just like most presidents that fought the banks. Oh and don't let the end of M3 reporting bother you in since March. The 19th century presidents tried to warn us.

http://www.libertydollar.org/html/Prominent%20Quotes.htm

What is scary what it pay for. War is puts a nation into debt and that gives the nation over to the bankers. The center of it is the Rothchilds.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/FED1.htm

You can bet your government is bought and paid for. The last guy that fought the Fed was JFK and look what happened to him.

The only reason we are finding out now is the press was completly owned until the internet. "You are a slave Neo".

[Bull]

Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.

How sure are we that the President chooses the next Greenspan? I mean, it's not like we know the selection process. For all we know, the FED is choosing their next leader...then sends something to the President telling him who they chose. OR the selection by the President can be sort of an agreement between the FED and the government. Do you honestly believe the FED doesn't have a say in who is chosen?

Just look at the links in my sig.

EDIT: Ron Paul strikes again...too bad he won't become President.

Abolish the Fed

[Straudos]

I have no doubt the Fed, along with a lot of experts, provide input on who should be selected to head the Fed. In fact, I'd hope so. Because I sure don't want a President who has probably never studied economics in his life to select the leader of the Fed without consulting experts in the field.

But when it comes down to it, it is a presidential decision.

[psholtz]

Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.
No.

90% of the NET EARNINGS of the Fed are refunded back to the Treasury.

There is a HUGE difference between GROSS REVENUE (i.e., the INTEREST the Fed collects viz the income tax) and NET EARNINGS. The bulk of that difference is spent on doing what central banks do: bailing out commercial banks that are failing b/c they overdrew themselves and lent out far more $$ than they had in reserve (i.e., fractional reserve lending).

[psholtz]

Straudos wrote: But when it comes down to it, it is a presidential decision.
And who do you think controls the President?

[psholtz]

arommel88 wrote: You can bet your government is bought and paid for. The last guy that fought the Fed was JFK and look what happened to him.
I think JFK was killed by the CIA, probably for something having to do w/ the Bay of Pigs.

JFK was trained at the (Fabian) London School of Economics. He was a member of the CFR. Over 70 of his Cabinet posts were staffed by CFR members. JFK spoke glowingly in support of the UN and IMF.

JFK toed in line to Fed and IMF policy about 98% of the time.

The thing about the silver certificates, U.S. Notes and EO11100 is apocryphal.. or rather, it's *true*, but the conception that conspiracy theorists have about it is apocryphal.. EO11100 was part of a range of federal rulings designed to take silver certs OUT of circulation, not but them back in. JFK agreed w/ and signed onto this legislation 100%, including EO11100. LBJ never revoked EO11100, which is want you'd expect if the "banksters" killed JFK just b/c of EO11100..

[psholtz]

Silkheat wrote: Straudos wrote: The <10% is used primarily to pay operating costs. Is that what you are referring to?

Yeah, but what an operating cost. 1.8 billion to employees, plus an additional 6% tax free to stock holders.
And I'm sure a large fraction of that operating "cost" includes bailouts to a range of domestic and international banking institutions.

That is, after all, the raison d'etre of the central bank: to act as a lender of last resort.

When your bank is so f***ed that you're about to go broke, you go to the central bank and get the taxpayers to bail you out. And when the central bank ITSELF goes broke (like the Bank of England did in the early 1990s thanks to Soros), you have to go to the "central bank of the central banks", namely, BIS in Geneva Switzerland, to settle your accounts.

[arommel88]

psholtz wrote: Straudos wrote: The leadership of the Fed is appointed by the president.

Over 90% of the interest the Fed charges is given to the Treasury of the Federal government.
No.

90% of the NET EARNINGS of the Fed are refunded back to the Treasury.

There is a HUGE difference between GROSS REVENUE (i.e., the INTEREST the Fed collects viz the income tax) and NET EARNINGS. The bulk of that difference is spent on doing what central banks do: bailing out commercial banks that are failing b/c they overdrew themselves and lent out far more $$ than they had in reserve (i.e., fractional reserve lending).


That is still not the bulk of the scam. Those that "refute" the claim of profits being returned are either stupid or corrupt. The biggest part of the scam is to be to loan out money with a fractional reserve of 10%. They lend the money and put a book entry of the loan asset and then a liabilty for the amount of the loan. The only risk is if the borrower defaults. However with big loans such as major corporations they always have the tax payer bail it out. So the bigger the loan , the better, they have no risk. Airline bail out ring any bells? You and I cannot loan $10,000 when we have $1,000. And does anyone think the insiders don't make their buddies cash? Before the crash of 1929 all their buddies were warned. They then bought it all up cheap.
Too bad these bankers are all genocidal maniacs like Jacob Schiff. He was the trader who financed the Bolsheviks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_%245_1963_USN.jpg

This was the year Kennedy was assinated. That is what happens when you try and kill the Fed. Now considering that they tried to assinate Jackson who did not renew the bank, shot Lincoln who made the green backs and James Garfield who stopped the bankers, the case for who killed Kennedy is closed. It was the bankers. When they are done with the US they will probably leave us in a wasteland with death squads like Russia and China or just set us up to loose a world war like Germany.

BTW. Who believes Jacob Rothschilds is worth the officail 450 million pounds?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/Oligarchs071103.html

13.5 billion worth of oil company in 03? That should be around 30 billion by now and he does not show up in the list of billionairs. He should be #4 just based on Yukos. He does not even show up at all. How stupid do they think we are? The answer is blind trusts and front corporations.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Rank_1.html

The skeptics cannot even do basic math...

[arommel88]

psholtz wrote: arommel88 wrote: You can bet your government is bought and paid for. The last guy that fought the Fed was JFK and look what happened to him.
I think JFK was killed by the CIA, probably for something having to do w/ the Bay of Pigs.

JFK was trained at the (Fabian) London School of Economics. He was a member of the CFR. Over 70 of his Cabinet posts were staffed by CFR members. JFK spoke glowingly in support of the UN and IMF.

JFK toed in line to Fed and IMF policy about 98% of the time.

The thing about the silver certificates, U.S. Notes and EO11100 is apocryphal.. or rather, it's *true*, but the conception that conspiracy theorists have about it is apocryphal.. EO11100 was part of a range of federal rulings designed to take silver certs OUT of circulation, not but them back in. JFK agreed w/ and signed onto this legislation 100%, including EO11100. LBJ never revoked EO11100, which is want you'd expect if the "banksters" killed JFK just b/c of EO11100..

Really? I always notice that people that claim this never post the order. Also, what does this have to do with "federal rulings"? These are executive orders already inherited with the executive branch. This does not go before the judicial branch.



Executive Order 11,110

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

1. By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and --
2. Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

What that means is j is appended to paragraph 1 of 10289. Any idea why it is called sub paragraph j? Take a look at paragraph 1 in 10289? It ends in "i" doesn't it? It says he can issue currency based upon uncommited silver bullion doesn't it?


Executive Order 10289--Providing for the performance of certain functions of the President by the Secretary of the Treasury

....

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59339


And what the heck is this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_%245_1963_USN.jpg

Play money? That is a red stamped "united states note" . He was towing the Fed line like after a bottle of Kentucky Burbon. Considering 4 billion worth of this stuff went into circulation after the order, then actually reading the orders, one would have to break the bottle over their head to think he was towing the Fed line.