DECEMBER 2007
Legal System vs. Law System
[Authored by Jim Townsend]
In the City
of London, there are four Inns of Court. These Inns
are private country clubs of the rich and have been
around for 1000 years, so they certainly have perfected
their techniques. Their trade is deceit.
There is a difference between
'lawful' and 'legal'. Lawful
contemplates the spirit of the law and is embodied in the
moral and ethical consideration of rendering unto each
man his due. Legal is
the 'form of the law' and merely means that it is written
down someplace. It is quite
possible for something to be "legal" and still
be totally unlawful.
These Inns of Court are a private enterprise. The main
players are made up of the Knights of the Garter and the
Queen and Queen Mother themselves are members of both the
Inner and Middle Temple. You can
read about their history at http://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk and
you will find the 'legal rules and regulations' for your
country posted here. Your
countries legal system is owned by the same court
that owns Ireland.
These Inns of Court make a living by usurping the 'laws
of the land' and replacing them with
the "legal system /
administration / pirate 'laws' of the high seas." These
pirates should be flying the skull and crossbones, not
the flag of the US. Hey, now
that I think about it, don't a few of your presidents
belong to a Skulls Club? In other
words, these people pretend that they are applying laws,
when they are really using their unlawful legal system to
usurp the laws of the land.
Americans generally think they won the war against the
British.
In actual fact, they lost it in
their courts. Look back into the middle
ages at pictures of Justice. She is a
buxom blonde with the most beautiful bright blue eyes. So now you
know who tied the rag around her head and left her
sitting blind folded on the steps of the court house. Of course,
these people are ever so much more intelligent than us
that they flaunt their symbols in our face and laugh at
our stupidity. Would you
give someone a sword and then blindfold them? Of course
not, but the people behind all this have no problem
blindfolding or 'hoodwinking' our young men and sending
them off to battle where their efforts will do nothing
more than entrench us ever deeper into their system of
deceit.
The Bar Associations of both Canada and the US and many
other countries are nothing more than these 'Legal
System' franchises. Look
carefully and you will see that every time your country
has been sold down the river, it has been by the members
of this franchise. These
franchised lawyers quite literally have 'legal
licenses to steal,' and steal they
do.
Now you know why your own
Constitution has no bearing when you are in a 'legal
court.' Were you in
a lawful court where the 'law of the
land' was being upheld, you would
have a fighting chance, but as it is, when we go into
court we are in a game called shooting fish in a barrel.
Their is only one way you get a KBE and that is through
SERVICES RENDERED to the British 'Crown.' The 'Crown' is
not the Queen by the way, but refers to the 'Crown
in Chancery,' a legislative
authority of Bankers and Lawyers from Chancery Lane
which backs off Fleet Street. Now ask
yourself what service did Giuliani render to get his
knighthood?
Even a better one; what service did
George Bush render to become a Knight of the British
Crown?
A Knight swears allegiance to her
Majesty when he is knighted. Doesn't it
bother you guys that you have people in positions of
power that have sworn allegiance to a foreign power?
Interestingly, in 1387, there was a 'peasants rebellion'
in England and all the Lawyers, Judiciary and members of
these Inns had their throats slit, which was
quite an apt punishment for these treasonous
little traitors. You can
read about this uprising in the excellent book entitled
"Born in Blood." Fact of the
matter is that every member of the Bar Association
is guilty of treason, for they have subverted the 'laws
of the land.' The legal
systems of both our countries are fronted out
of England. The banking
systems of both our countries are fronted out
of Belgium. And both of
them are financially controlled lock stock and barrel by
Switzerland, you know; the home of the UN, IMF, WTO, and
Bank of International Settlements which controls the
'Bank of Canada' and the 'Federal Reserve' in the US.
Ever wonder why Switzerland was neutral and Heir Hitler
even respected their 'neutrality' while he bombed
literally every other country around him? Of course,
you don't bomb your banker now do you? By the way,
the bombing run over Afghanistan is just so they can
build a pipeline to get the oil to a sea port in
Pakistan.
Don't expect the oil cartels to
thank you for your childrens blood to clear the way
for them to build it though.
EU-China summit to be overshadowed by trade rifts
27.11.2007 - 17:39 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Chinese and European Union
leaders will meet in Beijing on Wednesday (28 November)
to discuss a wide range of trade issues that have
complicated the relations between the two economic
powerhouses in recent years.The Chinese delegation headed
by premier Wen Jiabao will meet with European Commission
president Jose Manuel Barroso and trade commissioner
Peter Mandelson as well as with key EU monetary officials
- European Central Bank chief Mr Trichet, eurogroup head
Jean-Claude Juncker and monetary affairs commissioner
Joaquin Almunia.
While the agenda is filled with a broad spectrum of
topics - including climate change, energy security,
non-proliferation, the development of Africa, the Middle
East and Burma - the focus is on several lingering trade
issues.
One of the main topics on their agenda is the fast
growing trade deficit – the total value of goods
imported exceeding the value of goods exported - between
the EU and China, which is, according to recent
estimates, growing by €15 million every
hour."The considerable and growing trade deficit is
adding to EU citizens' anxiety about globalisation, and
is growing in political importance," president
Barroso said in a speech in Beijing on
Tuesday."Indeed, there is a risk that the economic
emergence of China is seen by Europeans as a
threat," he added.
According to European leaders, the roots of the deficit
can be found in China's policy of holding the renminbi
broadly stable against a basket of currencies, which
would result into a vast under-valuation of its currency
towards the euro, possibly by up to 20-25%.Consequently,
Chinese manufacturers can export their goods relatively
cheaply to the eurozone, while European companies
experience difficulties in selling their expensive goods
to Chinese customers.In advance of the talks, trade
commissioner Peter Mandelson argued that a stronger
renminbi may be beneficial for China as well.
But China is unlikely to budge on the issue. In talks
earlier this week with French president Nicolas Sarkozy,
premier Wen Jinbao reiterated his view that any exchange
rate change would only happen in a slow and controlled
manner.
China fears that a rapidly fluctuating currency would
cause unemployment and market instability.
Product safety will also be high on the agenda, following
a string of recent scandals involving unsafe Chinese
imports such as children's toys.In recent months, several
major toy manufacturers, including Mattel and Fisher
Price, have recalled millions of toys made in China over
safety concerns.These scandals led to calls for a ban on
imports of certain Chinese goods, a policy move the
Commission said it would consider if China made no
progress on product safety.
Last week (on 22 November), the Commission - after
reviewing measures taken by China - said that
"considerable progress" was made, though
stressed that problems remained at the lower end of the
market.But on Monday (26 November), Mr Mandelson urged
China to do more to guarantee safe products.
"Some Chinese officials pointed out that less than 1
percent of China's exports to Europe had alleged health
risks. But Europe imports half a billion euros worth of
goods from China every day, so even 1 percent is not
acceptable," he said at the opening of an
international food safety forum in Beijing, AP reports.
A related problem - and also an issue on the agenda - is
the lack of copyright enforcement in China, resulting in
widespread counterfeiting and the export of fake goods,
including medicines and toothpaste.
Another contentious issue to be discussed is the
accusation by the EU that China makes use of unfair and
disruptive trade practices like flooding EU markets with
goods sold below production price (dumping) and the
import of subsidised goods. The Commission has warned
that it will take anti-dumping measures if the problem is
not tackled or if the current level of the trade deficit
persists.
In addition, the Commission has expressed its frustration
about the lack of access to the Chinese market, calling
on the country to open its markets.
This week's EU-China meeting is the tenth annual summit
between the two economies. China has become the European
Union's second-biggest trade partner in recent years, and
its largest source of imports.
Playing 'chicken' with the
markets
By Julian Delasantellis
Any parent knows that sometimes you have to tell a child
something more than once to get your point across. If
you’re dealing with a teenager who has been allowed
to have his or her own way for too long, you may have to
repeat the message that things have changed, that there
are new expectations, a few times before it sinks in.
That’s what US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke
is doing with the markets these days - trying to send the
message that
he’s instituting new rules of conduct, of proper
behavior, for both the Fed and the markets.
Will the markets get and accept the message? We’ll
know at the next Fed meeting, on December 11.
In a speech delivered to the Cato Institute in Washington
on Wednesday, Bernanke expounded his views on what should
be the proper inputs that influence the policy decisions
of America’s central bank. Taken together they
indicate that, now 21 months into his 7 year term as
chairman, he has finally found footing and confidence
sufficient to make a fairly significant policy change
from his predecessor, the illustrious Alan Greenspan.
The first major change elucidated by Bernanke refers to a
new emphasis on what is called “overall”
inflation, in the place of a previously greater focus on
what is called “ core” inflation.
The distinction between core and overall inflation is
simple to understand. Overall inflation is a measure of
price increases in that place economists are rarely
concerned about, the real world. It’s what you feel
when you get a haircut, go out to dinner, and especially
these days, fill your car with gas.
But, traditionally, overall inflation has not been the
preferred inflation gauge for economists. In its stead,
they have favored looking at something called
“core” inflation, defined as price changes for
retail goods excluding food and energy.
There are some good reasons, other than economists’
traditional desire to live in a fantasy world, to look at
core inflation. Energy and food prices are much more
volatile than prices of other consumer goods, they
frequently are affected by many factors unrelated to the
basic health or weakness of the underlying economy.
Killing freezes in Florida (which, most likely due to
global warming, are now much less frequent than they used
to be) can cause price spikes in winter citrus, and
geopolitical tension in the oil producing regions
regularly produces what is called a “fear
premium” in oil and oil products prices.
By removing these volatile factors, the argument goes,
you get a better look at whether economic growth or
weakness, which, in contrast to the weather or OPEC, the
Fed can control, is causing the general level of prices
in the economy to rise or fall.
But the drawback of core inflation is that, in times such
as these, with food and energy prices rising rapidly, the
Fed loses credibility when it says that core inflation
only rose 0.2% in October, and consumers then compare
what they hear from their leaders with what they see on
their supermarket check out tape and on the price
signboards of gasoline stations, which are currently now
America’s real inflation index.
Therefore, Bernanke is now saying that the Fed is going
to tip the scales a bit back towards reality.
"Ultimately, households and businesses care about
the overall, or 'headline' rate of inflation; therefore,
the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee] should refer to
an overall inflation rate when evaluating whether the
committee has met its mandated objectives over the long
run. For that reason, the committee has decided to
publish projections for overall inflation as well as core
inflation. In its policy statements and elsewhere, the
committee makes frequent reference to core inflation
because, in light of the volatility of food and energy
prices, core inflation can be a useful short-run
indicator of the underlying trend in inflation. However,
at longer horizons, where monetary policy has the
greatest control over inflation, the overall inflation
rate is the appropriate gauge of whether inflation is at
a rate consistent with the dual mandate.”
But the real impact of this policy change is to make
future Federal Reserve interest rate cuts less likely,
and probably less frequent. The tremendous economic
growth of the petroleum-poor economies of China and India
has been spurring oil demand for much of this decade. As
for food demand, that is also being driven by these
countries' newly elevated living standards, as well as
the not insignificant factor of agricultural production
once dedicated to foodstuffs now being diverted to the
production of ethanol. If you are going to re-focus your
monetary policy on inflation, and if you are going to
measure inflation in such a way that it makes inflation
look worse than previously, then, in effect, the Fed is
tying itself up in a straitjacket of its own knitting in
regard to future rate cuts.
But the real change in Bernanke’s speech was related
to what is called "inflation targeting". In my
September 18 ATol article, A rate cut with a
shoeshine and a smile, and in my October 6
review of Alan Greenspan’s autobiography, The Age of
Turbulence, (Reaping what is sown) I noted how,
throughout Greenspan’s 18-year tenure as Fed chief,
and continuing into the early months of Bernanke’s,
it frequently seemed that pure economic fundamentals were
of secondary importance in deciding whether or when to
change short-term interest rates, especially if that
change was a rate cut.
After taking office as Fed chief in August 1987,
Greenspan’s first move was to show off his monetary
masculinity with half point hikes in the Federal Funds
target and discount rates on September 4; six weeks later
came the crash of '87. Greenspan was stung by charges
that his first rate move caused the debacle,
notwithstanding the fact that these charges arose from
Wall Street types who wouldn’t have known the
difference between selling stocks and selling shoes.
Greenspan cut rates repeatedly in the three months after
the October 1987 crash, and the economy recovered
rapidly; the fears that the market calamity might act
similarly to the Crash of 1929 and produce another Great
Depression proved unfounded. The pattern was set, the
stock markets came to realize that they could always rely
on chairman Greenspan.
From July to December of 1990 the markets sold off
nervously in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,
and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost over 16% of its
value. In response, the Greenspan Fed cut the Federal
Funds target rate five times. In mid 1998, as the Dow
sold off 11%, over 1,000 points, and as the East Asian
financial crisis concluded with the bankruptcy of the
Long Term Credit Management (LTCM) hedge fund, the Fed
cut again, trimming 75 basis points off the Federal Funds
target rate.
At the opening of trading on September 17, 2001, the
first day of trading after the four-day shutdown caused
by 9/11, Greenspan welcomed the markets back with a 50
basis point cut. After a brief recovery rally in the
autumn of 2001 the markets continued to fall, spooked by
both the gathering evidence of a US economic slowdown and
the Iraq war talk coming from Washington. The Dow Jones
bottomed out under 7,200 in early October 2002, down
almost 40% from its highs in early 2000. Over that
period, the Greenspan Fed cut rates 12 times; lowering
the Federal Funds target rate to 1.25% as the rate
cutting cycle concluded.
Of course most of these rate cuts did occur in times of
great economic stress, but, after a while, it began to
seem as if Greenspan was using the level of the stock
market not as a predictor of future economic disruption,
but almost as a proxy for it. After that, it was a just a
natural extension of the implied logic to assume that the
stock market declines were not just a harbinger of
future economic distress; they were, in effect, the
actual economic distress that had to be countered with
rate cuts. It began to be said that one of the factors
that was underpinning the strong rally in stock prices
that began late in 2002 was the existence of what was
called the “Greenspan put”, a put being a stock
option instrument that an investor uses to put a floor
under any potential losses in an equity he owns. In
effect, by seeming
to always come to the rescue of a stock market in
trouble, the stock market acquired the impression that
the US Federal Reserve would always be there to bail them
out.
Bernanke, who appeared to be following this pattern with
his rate cuts of August and September, now seems to want
to disabuse the markets of this notion. In my November 2
ATol article, Bernanke: Don't take me
for granted, boys, I noted that there
were leaks emanating from the Federal Reserve regarding a
desire to change the market’s expectation that stock
selloffs would always be met with rate cuts. In his Cato
speech, Bernanke further expanded on these ideas.
Bernanke seems to desire moving Fed policy away from Fed
cuts to be expected upon market hiccups towards a policy
called “inflation targeting”, common with other
central banks such as the Bank of England.
Very much as the name implies, inflation targeting means
setting a formal inflation goal, and altering policy in
order to zero in on the desired goal, for instance,
raising rates to tighten monetary policy should inflation
be coming in above the target goal.
Bernanke informed Cato of his views on inflation
targeting. “As you may know, I have been an advocate
of the monetary policy strategy known as inflation
targeting, used in many countries around the world.
Inflation targeting is characterized by two features: an
explicit numerical target or target range for inflation
and a high degree of transparency about forecasts and
policy plans.”
Bernanke’s new policy states that the Federal
Reserve will double, from two to four, the number of
annual forecasts it gives regarding how it sees future
prospects for inflation. The “transparent”
aspect of the policy is that the goals will be public,
there for all to see.
But besides fighting inflation, the Federal Reserve has
also been ordered by Congress to promote economic growth
in order to move towards full employment. “As I have
emphasized today, the Federal Reserve is legally
accountable to the Congress for two objectives, maximum
employment and price stability, on an equal footing. My
colleagues and I strongly support the dual mandate and
the equal weighting of objectives that it implies.“
But there is nothing in the new Bernanke approach that
implies that one of the new goals will be enhancing
“market stability”, the catchphrase codewords
employed by Greenspan to ride to the rescue of the
markets. Almost like a parent who deflects a child’s
wish for a higher allowance by producing and displaying
an overdrawn bank statement, the new policy seems to have
the Fed someday telling the markets, “We’d like
to cut rates, but, sorry, our rules say that we just
can’t.”
It is highly questionable whether under the new policy
guidelines the Fed would have cut rates the three times
it has since August 17, for, by the Fed’s own
admission, the overwhelming rationale for at least the
first and second cuts, and a major factor in the third,
was alleviating financial market turmoil.
The question now becomes, will the new policy preclude
another cut at the Fed’s next meeting, on December
11? If the Cato speech represents new policy guidance
then the answer is probably yes.
Inflation fears are, if anything, growing; the US dollar
is plunging, and two of the bond market’s prime
gauges for judging future inflationary expectations are
flashing red. The spread in yield (called the “yield
curve” in the markets) between what is being offered
in yield by two-year and 10-year US Treasury securities
is at a two and a half-year high, as is another closely
watched inflation warning indicator, the “TIPS”
spread between conventional fixed rate and inflation
protected 10-year Treasury securities.
It also does not appear that another cut can be justified
with an argument that economic growth is slowing. Third
quarter US GDP growth, at 3.9%, is surprising strong; the
subprime/credit crisis spooking the markets more and more
with each passing day implies an economic slowdown that
has not really commenced, at least not yet.
But the markets are acting as if nothing has changed with
the Fed. Federal Funds futures, reacting to the
continuing equity market selloffs, are still giving 94%
odds of a cut at or before December 11.
On November 12, BCA Research, a prominent Montreal
research organization, expressed the standard
"equity market weakness equals Fed rate cuts"
paradigm in this way. “Increasing stress in the
financial system and signs of reduced credit availability
mean that the Fed has a lot more easing ahead. The shift
to a neutral bias by the FOMC was misplaced given the
renewed rioting in the financial markets.”
This is thinking that the stock markets can understand,
that selloffs will always be met by cuts. Unless there is
an unbelievably rapid improvement in the subprime/credit
picture in the four weeks before the next meeting, it
will be the picture that will greet the Fed governors on
December 11. If they do cut, finding a way to produce
some sort of justifying blather in the accompanying
post-meeting statement, right in the face of the current
Fed independence bravado represented by the Cato speech,
will be difficult if Bernanke is to have any credibility
attached to any of his public statements for the
remaining 6 years of his term.
If they disappoint the markets and fail to cut, listen
for the screams of anything but joy as the stock market
roller coaster takes a long, hard plunge.
Notwithstanding Cato, I think they’ll cut. American
society is currently at a place where, if a child falls
and skins a knee on an unfilled crack in a school
playground, the local TV stations will send video crews
to hound the poor school janitor, or better yet, the
feckless school bureaucrat in charge, until the poor sod
ends his misery and sticks his head in a gas oven. At
which point, the media would be very satisfied.
“Justice for little Timmy. Story at 10.”
Imagine the media coverage of the huge losses that would
follow upon the markets being disappointed by the lack of
a cut. In the 24/7 vigilante pundit saturnalia that has
taken the place of what Americans once received as news,
a hunt would be initiated for the responsible scalps,
and, for this, Bernanke’s hirsute challenged pate
will do very nicely.
But perhaps they won’t, maybe Bernanke’s pride
will come before a very big fall. Bernanke and the
markets are like two teenage boys playing
“chicken” with very fast cars. Both are waiting
for the other to pull away, to blink.
For all our sakes, I hope somebody takes their car keys
away before the entire world’s economy crashes.
Julian Delasantellis
is a management consultant, private investor and educator
in international business in the US state of Washington.
He can be reached at juliandelasantellis@yahoo.com.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X
From The Final Call,
Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip
the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to
the government at interest. On that day President John F.
Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to
the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without
going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order
gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver
certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or
standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant
that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's
vault, the government could introduce new money into
circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion
in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this
bill are enormous. With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy
was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York out of business. If enough of these silver
certificates were to come into circulation they would
have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.
This is because the silver certificates are backed by
silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by
anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the
national debt from reaching its current level, because it
would have given the government the ability to repay its
debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being
charged interest in order to create the new money.
Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create
its own money backed by silver. After Mr. Kennedy was
assassinated just five months later, no more silver
certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that
the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S.
President through an Executive Order and is still valid.
Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of
the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since
1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive
Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current
level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to
future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S.
debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over
the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the
government of money by challenging the two most
successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up
debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned
central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of
Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have
severely cut into the profits and control of the New York
banking establishment. As America's debt reaches
unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that
will further increase America's debt, one is force to
ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider
utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing
to pay the ultimate price for doing so? Executive Order
11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 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- 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 -- By revoking subparagraphs (b)
and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. Sec. 2. The amendments
made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any
right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had
or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the
date of this Order but all such liabilities shall
continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had
not been made. John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4,
1963. Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met
the the same end is a mere coincidence. Abraham Lincoln's
Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the
original issue of money should be maintained as the
exclusive monopoly of national Government. Money
possesses no value to the State other than that given to
it by circulation. Capital has its proper place and is
entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be
recognised in the structure of and in the social order as
more important than the wages of money. No duty is more
imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the
People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency,
and of regulating the circulation of the medium of
exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious
currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and
safe exchanges. The available supply of Gold and Silver
being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins
of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into
coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the
People, some other basis for the issue of currency must
be developed, and some means other than that of
convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent
undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any
other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may
come into use. The monetary needs of increasing numbers
of People advancing towards higher standards of living
can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can
be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit
through the operation of a National Banking system .The
circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by
the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy
of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such
amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and
otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the
currency and creditof the Nation. Government should stand
behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of
the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money
through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank
bankruptcy. Government possessing the power to create and
issue currency and credits money and enjoying the right
to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by
Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow
capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental
work and public enterprise. The Government should create,
issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed
to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the
buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating
and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of
Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative
opportunity. By the adoption of these principles the long
felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The
taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest,
discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public
enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and
ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will
become matters of practical administration. The people
can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as
their own Government. Money will cease to be master and
become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise
superior to the money power. Some information on the
Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private
Corporation One of the most common concerns among people
who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is,
"Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability
to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first
article in this series, the modern withholding tax does
not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services.
What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal
Reserve System. Black's Law Dictionary defines the
"Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of
twelve central banks to which most national banks belong
and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership
rules require investment of stock and minimum
reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of
the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of
Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series,
Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned
by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding
commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine
member board of directors. Similarly, the Federal Reserve
Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled
by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law
Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks
actually issue money: Federal Reserve Act. Law which
created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in
maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of
bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising
banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.). The
FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue,
that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House
Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on
Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th
Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which
contains a good description of what the FED is: The
Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It
can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of
making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and
$10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking
the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print
them. As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a
lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the
power to create money. Imagine the power these people
would have. This is what the Fed is. No man did more to
expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who
was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in
the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues
shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert
Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In
describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional
Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman, 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.
The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has
cheated the Government of the United States and he people
of the United States out of enough money to pay the
national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the
Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks
acting together have cost this country enough money to
pay the national debt several times over. This evil
institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the
United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically
bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the
maladministration of that law by which the Federal
Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the
moneyed vultures who control it. Some people think the
Federal reserve banks are United States Government
institutions. They are not Government institutions. They
are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and
their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators
and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In
that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who
would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his
pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy
votes to control our legislation; and there are those who
maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of
deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new
concessions which will permit them to cover up their past
misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of
crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were
deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by
bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for
our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted
its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create
money, then loan it back to the government charging
interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the
interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to
note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth
amendment, which gave congress the power to collect
income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible
power of the Fed over the economy is universally
admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and
academic communities, even support it. On the other hand,
there are those, both in the past and in the present,
that speak out against it. One of these men was President
John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs'
1990 book, Crossfire: Another overlooked aspect of
Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves
money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to
the constitution, which states that only Congress shall
coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could
be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the
Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan
it to the government at interest. He moved in this area
on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which
called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United
States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the
traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day,
Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two
dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the
weakened U.S. currency. Kennedy's comptroller of the
currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the
powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging
broader investment and lending powers for banks that were
not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had
decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and
local general obligation bonds, again weakening the
dominant Federal Reserve banks. A number of "Kennedy
bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five
dollar bill in his possession with the heading
"United States Note" - but were quickly
withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information
from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although
successive administrations beginning with that of
President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored
it and instead returned to the practice of paying
interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to
use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an
all-time high. The point being made is that the IRS taxes
you pay aren't used for government services. It won't
hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate
your tax liability. www.whatreallyhappened.com