Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A Phone Call to the Federal Reserve Board

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    lahun-ok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, February 19th, 2005 @ 12:47 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Tiuz
    Posts
    62
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post A Phone Call to the Federal Reserve Board

    A Phone Call To The Fed

    From Dan Benham

    ©1988-2002

    d.benham@worldnet.att.net
    9-8-2

    The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

    CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

    MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

    CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

    MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

    CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

    CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

    MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

    CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

    CALLER - What are these assets composed of?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

    CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

    CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

    CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

    MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

    CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

    CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

    CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

    CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

    CALLER - Where did they go?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

    CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

    CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

    MR. SUPINSKI - No

    CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

    MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.

    CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

    CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

    CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.

    CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

    MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.

    CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

    CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.

    CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.

    CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

    MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).

    CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

    CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.

    CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

    MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

    CALLER - What is the solution?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

    CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

    CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.

    CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.

    CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.

    CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

    MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.

    CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

    MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.

    CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.

    MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    lahun-ok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, February 19th, 2005 @ 12:47 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Tiuz
    Posts
    62
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

    What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
    by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
    The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
    There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."
    Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
    In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
    Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
    Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
    This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
    The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
    The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
    Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
    Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
    The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
    Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?
    Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
    Do you think they will do it again?
    Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
    Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
    Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?
    Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
    Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
    This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
    The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.
    In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
    Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
    Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
    Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
    The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.
    Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
    Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
    It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
    Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
    So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.
    If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
    Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
    Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
    Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
    Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"

    "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
    John P. Curran

  3. #3
    Sideways to the Sun
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,711
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    18 Posts

    Post Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board.

    Much the same in all "Developed" countries I'm afraid.



    An economy based on usury

    By E. Walter Carr


    The study of Britain's banking and monetary system is made complex due to so much of the system's activity being conducted in semi-secrecy.

    The system of banking that we were taught at school was completely misleading. We were told that our spare money, called savings, was given to the bank for safe keeping. The bank gave us a book in which they entered the amounts. The bank paid us a small interest on this money which it added to our savings annually. We were told that the bank lent our savings to its customers at a higher rate than it gave us, and that the difference was what the bank kept for the wages of its staff, buying and servicing its buildings, producing currency and its profit. This is honourable trading, but it is a very tiny part of what really happens in banking. In practice it is just 'window-dressing', concealing the very large-scale legalised counterfeiting which takes place in banks.

    Over the years, statements have been made by many people who had great knowledge of the banking and monetary system which should have set off alarm bells amongst the British people.

    Here are three examples:-

    1) Henry Ford I. The motor magnate who pioneered mass production in factories wrote:

    'It is well that the people of the Nation do not understand our Monetary and Banking System - if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning.'

    2) Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836), banker, said: "Allow me to issue and control a country's money and I care not who writes its Laws."

    3) Reginald McKenna, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of Midland Bank, said in a speech to shareholders in 1924: "The banks create money when they lend or make a purchase. Those people who have control over the credit of a country hold in the palm of their hand the fate of that country and determine its policies."

    How it began

    To help with the understanding of our monetary system a little history may be helpful. From the earliest times of commerce, gold has been used for measuring wealth, although it is useless for supporting life, and there are many more useful metals in the world.

    Coins were made from gold, and the weight of a coin was the equivalent of a pound's weight of silver. Hence the term Pound Sterling. Silver and copper were sometimes used for coins of lesser value.

    Security was always a problem with gold, and towards the end of the Middle Ages holders of large quantities of gold coins or gold bars commenced taking their precious metal to goldsmiths for safe keeping, as these craftsmen possessed the best and biggest safes. The owners of the gold paid a storage charge to the goldsmiths for their service and received receipts for their deposits.

    Originally, the owners of the gold withdrew it from the goldsmith's safe as required for their trading and the receipts were cancelled.

    After a period of time, however, people became so confident with the safety of their gold in the vaults of the goldsmiths that they commenced exchanging their receipts only. These receipts were called cheques, and this was the beginning of a type of cheque system of money.

    As the process of exchanging receipts continued, the gold remained in the goldsmiths' safes doing nothing. The goldsmiths, realising that their safes were continually full of gold, began lending it to other people and charging 10 per cent interest on it. In practice, the goldsmiths did not hand over gold to the new customer but merely issued a receipt for the loaned amount, just as they had done in earlier times to the owner of the gold.

    The gold did not belong to the goldsmiths, who were being paid by the owners of it for safe storage - but now they were lending it to other people and receiving 10 per cent interest in addition!

    These goldsmiths, mainly Jewish, were the world's first bankers, and soon became very wealthy with the aid of gold which they did not own! That is usury.

    When King Edward 1st of England came to the throne in 1272, he soon became aware of the social and economic problems that members of the Jewish community were causing as a result of their usury, and he would not allow himself to be bribed into protecting their money-lending activities. He made a law which stated that Jews could only make a living in England as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers - the honest occupations followed by their Gentile fellow-subjects.

    The Jews were not happy with this law and secretly carried on with their usury - charging up to 20 per cent interest on loans. They also engaged in coin-clipping of gold and silver coins, which they melted down and sold as bullion in Europe, thus putting the English economy in peril by draining gold out of the country.

    King Edward lost his patience with this corruption, and in 1290 issued the Statute of Jewry. This ordered all Jews out of the Realm with all of their possessions and forbade them ever to return. Most were given a safe escort to France. (For full details see: The Calendar of Closed Rolls; 18 Edward 1, and Patent Roll, Edward 1, Memo 21, dated 2lst. June 1290).

    England resisted the return of the Jews for approximately 350 years - into the start of the reign of Charles 1st (1625). From a letter dated 16th June 1647, written by Oliver Cromwell, we learn that "In return for financial support, will advocate readmission of Jews into England. This, however, is impossible while Charles 1st is living."

    After much corruption in the House of Commons, a communist-type remnant of 50 members known as 'the Rump' invested themselves with the 'Supreme Authority of England'.

    The Jewish Encyclopaedia confirms that Cromwell was in contact with powerful Jewish financiers in Holland and was paid large sums of money by Menasseh Ben Israel, while another Jew named Fernandez Carvajal was the chief contractor for supplying arms and equipment for Cromwell's New Model Army.

    After destroying many of England's fine buildings and executing Charles 1st in 1649, following a mock trial, Cromwell took charge of England as Lord Protector (1653-1658). He was succeeded by his son Richard (1658-59). During the Cromwells' reign, the Jews returned to England, without official permission.

    Scotland still had a King Charles II, and on Richard Cromwell's death he was made King of both England and Scotland in 1660. Charles II had no qualms about the Jewish problem and ignored the experience and wisdom of Charles 1st.

    Charles II was followed by James II, and during the latter's reign there was much propaganda spread throughout England against him. Most of it came from Holland and this was followed by William (of Orange) landing in England and James II escaping to France (1688). Among those who deserted James II was John Churchill (who became 1st Duke of Marlborough), whom, it is stated in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, received £6,000 per annum for many years from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.

    The real objective of the invading financiers was achieved a few years later in 1694, and was known as the 'Glorious Revolution'. This was a disaster for our nation and occurred when the Royal Consent was given by the Dutch King William III of Orange for the setting up of the Bank of 'England' and the institution of the National Debt. This Royal Charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal Prerogative of minting money, converting the basis of wealth to gold, and it enabled international moneylenders to secure their loans on the taxes of our nation.

    From that moment, the economic machinery was set in motion whereby all wealth was ultimately reduced to the fictitious terms of gold, which the alien Jews controlled. This drained away the life blood of our land and real wealth which was the birthright of the British People.

    The political and economic Union of England and Scotland was soon forced on Scotland - for the purpose of suppressing the independent Royal Mint of Scotland and dragging it into the National Debt trap via the Bank of 'England'.

    With the whole of Britain now in the grip of the Jewish moneylenders and their hangers-on, there was a danger that, sooner or later, the members of the new joint Parliament, formed in the spirit of their ancestors, might challenge this sordid state of affairs. To provide against this, the party political system was devised, which frustrated national resistance and enabled the wire-pullers to divide and rule - using their newly established financial monopoly power to ensure that their own lackeys - and policies - would secure the limelight and, with enough support from newspapers, pamphlets and banking accounts, carry the day.

    Gold continued to be the basis of loans until after World War I. Loans were permitted up to ten times the amounts deposited, and this was known as the 10 per cent Fractional Reserve. In other words, £100 in gold held by a bank enabled it to make up to £l,000 in interest-bearing loans out of 'thin air' to customers with adequate security (collateral).

    At 5 per cent interest, the £100 gold deposit would earn £50 interest annually, while the entire £l,000 in loans would be returned to the bank, together with £50 interest as a bank asset - all with just a little ledger work!

    Although gold is not now used for coinage, it still plays a mysterious part in finance. On every working day at 11 a.m., a Mr. Rothschild in London, after telephoning around the world for a few minutes to his friends, personally fixes the price of gold for 24 hours. Also our various banknotes all have printed on them below Bank of England: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five [or whatever value] pounds."

    Modern banking is basically similar to the system which operated at the end of the 17th century but some 97 per cent of transactions today are numbers and codes tapped or electronically entered into computers. Today only about 3 per cent of transactions are done with paper bank notes and metal coins, which have to be bought by banks from the Bank of 'England'.

    Banks and building societies are now creating monies for interest-bearing loans out of nothing, without even Fractional Reserve restriction, provided adequate collateral is provided by the borrower. When the loan money is paid back to the bank, together with the interest charge, all is treated as a bank asset, although the bank started with nothing and took no risks, as the transaction was protected with the customer's collateral!

    How the system works

    A thriving engineering company wishes to expand into an enlarged building and requires £500,000 for the project. It cannot do this out of earnings in the time required, due to heavy taxation on profits, and therefore seeks a loan from the bank.

    The bank manager examines the engineering company's balance sheet to satisfy himself that the business is creditworthy. If satisfied, he then asks the company for, say, £600,000 worth of collateral in the form of company shares, property deeds, insurance policies, and so on - all to be lodged in the bank's safe, against the proposed loan.

    With loan granted, the bank manager now holds security of £600,000 against a loan of £500,000, and the engineering company secretary walks out of the bank with just a cheque book and the bank manager's permission to write out cheques to pay for the new building.

    The bank manager has not loaned the £500,000 from his other customers' deposit accounts, nor has he taken it from his own bank safe. Nothing has changed except for a book entry logging all engineering company collateral items and their values now in the bank safe and an interest-bearing account showing the company owing £500,000 to the bank. The £500,000 facility has been created, not from the bank, which only provided the cheque book, made ledger entries and stored the collateral agreement.

    The real value

    The real value in terms of goods and services comes from the community. The goods required to build the factory extension are taken from the people, and there is almost £500,000 more money in circulation with interest being paid on it.

    The engineering company increases its production with the enlarged factory and pays off the loan debt. The collateral documents are returned from the bank to the engineering company and the £500,000 loan amount plus the agreed interest is entered as an asset of the bank and the interest recognised as income for the bank.

    The bank risks little or nothing and ends up with scandalously high profits by a simple method of book-keeping. This is legal counterfeiting in a disgraceful form - it is usury.

    There is a perpetual shortage of money in the national economy, and this can only be rectified under the present system with fresh loans at interest - created out of nothing by private banks. This must be stopped, and the accountable government must issue our currency for all transactions without interest in sufficient quantity to match the nation's Gross National Product.

    The portion of Britain's National Debt accumulated by usury should be cancelled.

    All banks and building societies are controlled in Britain by the Bank of 'England', with half of its directors nominated by the government of the day but with voting power. The other half are secretly appointed and could even be non-British, though having full voting power!

    MPs are not allowed to table questions in Parliament about the Bank of 'England'.

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 @ 08:07 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    Freethinker
    Posts
    147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board.

    Spooky....

    CALLER - What is the solution?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

    CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

    Why does Fight Club comes to my mind?


    Above all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency. While they listen carefully to Congress and the President, and even to the election returns, in the end the members of the Board of Governernors and the FOMC decide monetary policy according to their views about the nation's economic interests. As a result, the Fed sometimes comes into conflict with the executive branch. The Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations all had occasional harsh words for Fed policy. The Fed listened politely, but the President could not force the Fed to bend to his wishes.

    From time to time, people argue that the Fed is too independent.
    "How can a democracy allow a group of private bankers to control monetary policy?" ask critics.
    Who, they ask, gave the Federal Reserve the authority to raise interest rates to 20% in 1980?
    Where can we read that the Fed is authorized to tighten money and create recessions?
    Shouldn't monetary policy be set by elected representatives in Congress or by the executive branch?

    There is no right answer to these questions.
    Source: Paul A. Samuelson & William D. Nordhaus
    ECONOMICS, fourteenth Edition, page 526

    This is standard wisdom teached on german universities 2000, godgiven and no questions asked!


    And now guess why judea declared war on Germany 1933?

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 @ 08:21 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    50
    Posts
    26
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board.

    I understand the comments concerning the Federal Reserve but you also have to understand that is one of the only instruments the government has that provides a safety net to protect the monetary system and how it functions.

    Most developed nations have some sort of government sponsored monetary reserve system in-place to protect itself from collapse. Look at what happened to the world from 1927 to 1935. You had a massive economic panic causing runs on Banks who in-turn had no where to go to cover their cash deposits. There was no Federal Reserve system. This causes a crash…..no money and the economy collapses. The Stock markets took huge dives, Banks were forced to call loans on companies causing massive bankrupt. This causing more banks to go under forcing the entire world into depression.

    The monetary reserve system was setup to provide a safety net and insure deposits to prevent insecurity in the banking systems. I agree it is a house of cards but name a better system?

    Interest. This is a fundamental tool used for centuries and if not abused (i.e. hyperinflation see Germany 1923 or 1980s Argentina) it is a good thing. Mankind works hard for his labors and expects a decent wage in return. Man then invest his hard earned money in a secure entity and receives a return for allowing that entity use of his money. (INTEREST)

    The best thing is that the entity allows others access to these funds in return for interest that allows others to buy land, build homes, afford cars to go to work and produce. I helps others start businesses or expand to employ others. A good thing.

    Anyway. Protection of the above described system is important. I know I know you say well the rates are too high and the returns are too low….

    The nice thing about a competitive system is you don't have to put it in that bank….put it in a money market fund, credit union, mutual fund account that have checking accounts attached to it. Competition will be the watchdog to keep the system inline. What the Monetary Reserve system does is provide a sense of security and to some extent…insurance to make sure the 1920s will not happen again. If it costs interest then fine so be it.

    Now as to the debt. True it has an effect on the economy but it is really a phantom because the FED controls the cashflow anyway. It also controls the interest rate levels that banks can borrow reserves from the FED. Additionally, the FED has another important control which is the minimum reserve requirement that banks must keep in reserves to keep membership in the reserve system. This is an important tool because it controls the amount of money in the system. The lower the MRR the faster the economy runs because more money in the system. The higher the MRR the less money in the system and the economy contracts. (think of it as a gas pedal on a car)

    The nice part about the debt is other countries borrow or invest money and buy into a countries economy. If the debt gets too high then the system increases the money supply raising inflation and the ecomony repaiy portions of the debt with cheaper money. As the levels move so do changes inthe economy.

    From time to time, people argue that the Fed is too independent.
    "How can a democracy allow a group of private bankers to control monetary policy?" ask critics.
    Who, they ask, gave the Federal Reserve the authority to raise interest rates to 20% in 1980?
    Where can we read that the Fed is authorized to tighten money and create recessions?
    Shouldn't monetary policy be set by elected representatives in Congress or by the executive branch?

    1. the USA is not a democracy. private bankers must adhere to the goverments requirments and regulations to beable to be a bank and participate private banks make decisions based on narrow parameters within their charter.

    2. that idiot names Jimmy Carter in 1977. Paul Volker, FED Chair, in 1977 advised that "peanut head" President that the economy was imploding and the only way to correct was dramatic adustments in the interest rates. The President approved the plan and the rest is history. (p.s. Paul Volker is a Keynesian.....bad news!)

    3. This is authorized in the Charter creating the FED and with the approval of the US Congress and approved by the President. The Fed has the obligation to regulate interest rates as to see to the best interests of the economy of the nation.

    4.Absolutely not! The problem with elected officials is they have short terms and they only think about 1 thing when they are elected.....re-election! FED Chairs have long terms and are appointed by the President with the approval of Congress (next best thing to elections) If you have a FED Chair having to run for office then he thinks more about re-election than running the FED. Appointments with the approval of Congress is better.

    As to the question concerning the amount of cash in the system.....you have to remember the multiplier effect and how it is reflected in the money inthe system.

    As to the question concerning Debit Cards.......don't worry...banks have been copying your check for 40 years so they already know your spending habits and whre you are and where you have been.... so that's a moot point. Don't want them to know where you spend you money....do like I do....withdraw the money with debit card from ATM and spend the cash were you want. They can't really track that.

    Oh darn!!!! I forgot about all the security cameras!!!! I guess they can.

    P.S. I do not work for any government or bank entity!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Kel`Thuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, October 23rd, 2006 @ 12:15 PM
    Subrace
    Cordoid
    Location
    White Croatia (Mordor)
    Gender
    Occupation
    economist
    Politics
    ultra-right libertaryan
    Religion
    aryosofem
    Posts
    103
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board.

    Has anyone of you read Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money? Taking money back"

  8. #8
    Account Disabled on Request

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 28th, 2009 @ 03:48 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Bruenn
    Location
    europe
    Gender
    Posts
    4,146
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

    Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board.

    Quote Originally Posted by VonPletz
    I understand the comments concerning the Federal Reserve but you also have to understand that is one of the only instruments the government has that provides a safety net to protect the monetary system and how it functions.

    Most developed nations have some sort of government sponsored monetary reserve system in-place to protect itself from collapse. Look at what happened to the world from 1927 to 1935. You had a massive economic panic causing runs on Banks who in-turn had no where to go to cover their cash deposits. There was no Federal Reserve system.
    The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. It's inflationary policies were essentially the cause of the Great Depression. The subsequent interventions to "rescue" the situation made matters far worse.

    America's Great Depression is a good overview of the subject.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Vanir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 14th, 2007 @ 09:32 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    813
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Re: A phone call to the Federal Reserve Board

    Ahh now, this subject cuts close to the bone doesn't it.

    As long as this house of cards puts meat and potatoes in every home, the average person, whose immediate hand-to-mouth needs have been met, will not shake it.

    Something interesting I read just the other day. I won't insist upon it, but it makes you wonder.


    John F. Kennedy
    No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so-called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F. Kennedy came into office.
    President Kennedy was not afraid to "buck the system", for he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United States. As a just and honorable man, he could not tolerate such a system, for it smelled corruption from A to Z. Certainly he must have known about the Greenbacks which Abraham Lincoln created when he was in office.
    On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11110, which further amended Executive order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.
    Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfectly obvious that Kennedy was out to undermine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.
    But it was only a few months later, in November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely, President Kennedy must have had it in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money.
    It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes which Kennedy had issued were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly-installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate, all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people.
    A lesson to learn
    There is much that can be learned from our past history. Here we are in 1997 , and the United States is still operating under the Federal Reserve System. It has already plunged our country over four trillion dollars into debt, a debt it will never be able to pay, and has been responsible for every kind corruption imaginable. Yet, barely a peep of protest can be heard from the American people.
    All The Bankers have to do to keep their power is to get rid of the few politicians who are honestly working for a reform in our economic system, and the people at large remain ignorant and controlled. It is obvious the American people need to be awakened to the truth.
    The population at large must be educated on the Federal Reserve, and then unite together to put pressure on the Government to get the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 repealed. Otherwise, it will spell disaster for the United States.
    There can be no peace witout justice, and there can be no justice without a reform in our economic system, for the financiers are behind all the corruption in our Government.
    Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had the courage to stand up for principles and to fight for justice. They have both gone down in history as being true patriots of the United States. But do we, as citizens, have the courage to follow their example?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Oxygen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 4th, 2012 @ 06:10 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Must see interview with Author Ron MacDonald

    The interview with Mr. Supinski was great

    I saw a great interview on Alex Jones today with Author Ron MacDonald in witch he talks about his book "They Own it All (Including You) by Means of Toxic Currency" seems to be a good read.

    Ron MacDonald: They Own it All part1

    Ron MacDonald: They Own it All part2


    The thing I really got from watching this is how federal reserve notes can be used as money when it is illegal for anyone other than the US government to issue money. The way they go around it is by seeing federal reserve notes as private product that by consent of the public is used as a means of value transaction. As with the example in the show when people get a job they agree to accepting federal reserve notes as payment thus legalizing an illegal currency by consent! You have to admire the diabolical brilliance of this crap.
    Defamation-What is anti-Semitism today?http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=131762

Similar Threads

  1. Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation
    By SC-Mann in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 04:15 PM
  2. Federal Reserve: Who Really Controls It?
    By Thorsberg in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, March 28th, 2009, 10:08 PM
  3. JFK vs. The Federal Reserve
    By lahun-ok in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 6th, 2004, 01:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •