“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
I will tell you more about President Wilson in another blog, but this guy is exactly why we are where we are today and he was a "high socialist". He was the first elected Progressive. In case you don’t know, the Progressive party ushered in Prohibition! You know – the law that outlawed “spirits” (alcohol). That’s also Obama’s party, although he didn’t really say so until AFTER the election. Watch your beer folks - although Obama's gig seems to be more about cigarettes – the hypocrite…but I digress…
I am going to start from the beginning. If I start from the end, I only get half the picture. At the very least, it is a distorted view and it doesn’t give me a way to answer the questions well enough to make sure that people cannot continue to mislead me. Whether my broker, my banker, a congressperson or the president.
So what happened to America? What does it all mean and how do you put it together? It’s tough unless you have a economics/history degree. It’s actually really just common sense when you break it down, but the breaking down is not easy. I tried to break the concepts down to make it considerably easier for you. Mainly I did so because I am concerned that if we don’t get it soon, we are going to be in a big lot of trouble that we cannot even fathom now.
There are basically two sides of the fence, statist ideology and the gold specie which we will get into in a later blog, but whose definitions are:
Statism - The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
Specie – means simply the belief in coin, money in the form of coins (as opposed to paper money or bullion) and comes from phrase in specie "in the real or actual form" within a society. Specie can also be related to the Labor of peoples, which is why it was mandatory that Act 1 of the scheme, of which I am about to tell you be played out first.
As you can easily see, one has a doctrine, a belief system attached and the other is based in actuality of a unit of trade.
I have to give a shout out to my senior year Government teacher, Mr. Hurncane. We did not learn just the basics in that class. We broke out the constitution, we broke it down line by line, we learned what the President thought after their terms (when possible) and we learned the forces that shaped the subsequent amendments. So much, I do not remember, but it is amazing that so much is coming back to me as I am watching what is going on in this country. He had a big hand in shaping my life, made me passionate about protecting our freedoms, and made it a lifelong love affair of all things liberty.
My recent education in order to answer the basic question...what in the hell is going on... taught me a few things I knew but didn’t know - if you get my drift. I learned that it all got its start back in 1913 under Pres. Woodrow Wilson, with a "sky is falling" state of fear created by JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and Paul Warburg. These three private bankers worked with Wilson (a past Princeton professor) that only bankers had the answer and together they could rule the world one day if he would only pass two pieces of legislation.
Led by McAdoo, the then Secretary Treasurer, we had a ‘sky is falling’ announcement to the Citizens very similar to first Paulson and now Geithner’s today. Let's call it a "created" crisis. Between Wilson and McAdoo, they pressured Congress to pass the 16th Amendment - without ratification of a sufficient number of States, I might add. In case you don’t know which Amendment that is, it is the Amendment that says we have to pay an "Income" Tax.
An interesting side note I uncovered here is that in 2003, a US District Court Judge by the name of James Fox wrote opinion in a Tax Case that said,
“If you examine the 16th amendment carefully, you will find that a sufficient number of States never ratified that Amendment”.
Are we to assume this is still the case, since it was as late as 2003 that this opinion was written? That in reality, there is no “ratified” Amendment 16? Does that mean that current law says not enough States passed the Amendment - effectively meaning that we really do not have to pay Income Tax?
It would at least now appear that is true of most of Obama’s cabinet members, anyway…. Alas, that’s a whole other ball of wax, now isn’t it? I’m not going to go into that, but will leave it to someone else.
As to our history lesson though, Congress passed an Amendment that had been ruled unconstitutional just a few short years prior, by the Supreme Court. It appears that after lying to the public - stating that it had been ratified, and subsequently imposing such tax, they summarily saddled every working man and woman with a new law they weren’t expecting in the way of “Income” Tax.
Then we had the next big blow that same year (beginning to sound familar?), the Bankers helped McAdoo and Wilson with a second bill, this one introduced to Congress in the middle of that year’s Christmas holiday break when most of the House was not present.
Now I don’t know how much you and yours pay attention to the passing of legislation, but that’s dirty politics right there. To hold a vote that important without the individuals that had been elected to represent the rights of their constituents, and therefore were listed as “not present”, is just. plain. wrong.!
As a result of that dirty vote though, the House proceeded to ram through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That vote effectively began, in large measure, the adoption of the Statist Ideology and began the move away from the Gold Specie. It developed a mixed money system and they did so because the Bankers felt that they could do a much better job than we could or the majority of the people we elected could do. Not really, that’s just what they said; actually, they just wanted control.
That act was and remains the largest elephant (of several) in the room, this isn’t just an 8000 lb elephant, this thing still fills the house floor and is now so bloated it takes up all the space available between the Capital and Wall Street.
So what is the Federal Reserve Board Act?
Many believe the Federal Reserve Board Act is an unconstitutional act. They are probably more right than wrong. The act created a centralized banking system controlled by an independent board of bankers. This board, the Federal Reserve, gave the broad power to perform such central banking functions as: determining and harmonizing discount rates, defining eligible paper, and controlling the issue of notes (aka “money”).
In other words, they are private bankers who control the money, the supply of money – and in still clearer words, the dips, and rises in the economy. They are not a "Federal" anything!
The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window. With three types, primary, secondary and seasonal credit, each with its own rate, overnight loans, shortfall loans and less than stellar backed loans. This also allowed a “mixed Gold Standard” meaning that even though Gold remained the backing and a backdrop of support for money, the “Fed” could and did devalue said money by the printing of more money when so desired by raising or lowering the price of Gold or manufacturing money to purchase government securities (bonds, T Bills, etc).
They passed this off as a “good thing” for the American public. Now the very unfederal Fed could issue and print dollar 'notes' at will based on existing gold stores or by buying your government issued bonds with Monopoly money that it then "loaned" to the American Government. The American Government had to pay interest on that money, that the day before this bill was enacted, it already owned - and then turn around to pay interest to the very unfederal Federal Reserve.
You have to admit though; it is a sweetheart deal for the bankers! Admirable even - but I have to think that giving private bankers control over the issuing of money and the setting of interest could be very diabolical, indeed. In reality, it caused a nation that had virtually no inflation and no debt to become one of terrible inflation and way too much debt.
If we are to break it down into easy to understand terms, the true meaning of the establishment of the fed is simply to say that the government and its people no longer had control of their own money. The bankers seized control, and the government had to borrow money from the bankers for anything they needed, then turn right around and pay back that money, with interest, to finance itself...and the best part is that the bankers get to name the interest rate! Sweet!
This from a government that was relatively flush at the time in spite of the fact there were some Industrial hiccups and who had just passed the law that Americans would be taxed on the money they earn to feed their families. This is a very important piece of this whole deal: Hand in hand with the 16th Amendment the government forced fees on the people that the government collected from the sweat of the backs of worker in order to ensure they had enough to pay the interest on the loans – loans for money that yesterday THEY owned.
And the progressives want us to believe they are for the workers....right.
These banker “gentlemen” put us right back into ownership again in a midnight Christmas vote. We fought a war to overcome unreasonable taxation and to take our country away from the throne, and within a little over 125 years, they put us right back there again, only this time to secure votes.
Mayer Rothschild himself said somewhere around 1800 “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” Mayer Rothschild was a private banker, born by the name of Bauer, Feb 23, 1744 –Sept 19, 1812. He was the founder of the Rothschild family banking empire that would become one of the most successful business families in history. In 2005, he was ranked 7th on the Forbes magazine list of the The Twenty Most Influential Businessmen Of All Time. The business magazine referred to him as a "founding father of international finance”. I would assume he knew wherefrom he spoke.
It was this law that created the nervousness of the early part of the century and in spite of the assurances of the Fed and the government, was the driving force in the Great Depression. We are there again folks. Do not doubt that.
Next blog: So what really is money?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment