IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cnbc Anchors Mortified That Ron Paul Was Allowed Air Time
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 1 2009, 11:50 AM
Post #1


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



CNBC Anchors Mortified That Ron Paul Was Allowed Air Time

Thursday, Feb 26th, 2009



CNBC anchors were left dumbfounded and acted overtly cantankerous yesterday after Congressman Ron Paul's opening statement at the House Financial Services Committee was broadcast live to an audience of millions.
CNBC went live to the House, clearly without knowing that the Texas Congressman had the initial Republican statement at the hearing of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

After the Congressman spent two and a half minutes lecturing Bernanke on sound money principles, warning that the financial crisis cannot be solved by merely creating credit out of thin air, CNBC cut back to the studio.

Anchors Erin Burnett and Mark Haines were so perturbed by what they had just heard that they immediately cut to a commercial break:

Haines: "This is not going as planned"

Burnett: "No it is not"

Haines: "We were told that there would be a very limited number of opening statements, and it seems to be getting out of control."

Burnett: "Here's what we forgot, everybody is taking this live, you know what that means? Why would they miss an opportunity for free air time?"

Haines: "We're going to take a commercial break and get them out of the way, so that when something really substandard [he must mean substantial?] is happening, we don't have to interrupt them."

Watch the video:


The Congressman's speech was powerful and eye opening:

"This is the end of an era," said Paul, "we can't reinflate the bubble….if we think that we can reinflate this bubble by artificially creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, believe me we don't have a prayer of solving these problems - we have a total misunderstanding of what credit is versus capital."

Of course, in the eyes of the corporate media shills for the Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street Paul's words were "out of control". How dare he speak such sense and actively question the logic of the almighty ones, our only hope, our saviors (who also happen to be the very same set of criminals that led us down the path to economic ruin in the first instance).

Then again, how could we expect anything else from the likes of CNBC's Burnett and Haines, who have previously demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, even commenting that gold has "no inherent value".

Research related articles:
  1. Ron Paul Grills Bernanke: "You Can't Reinflate The Bubble"
  2. Ron Paul: Bernanke Deliberately Destroying Dollar
  3. Ron Paul Slams "Born-again Budget Conservatives"
  4. CNBC Host Recommends Statins be Put in the Water Supply
  5. Ron Paul Hits Out At "Arrogant" Greenspan
  6. Ron Paul: Secretive Elite Control America
  7. Obama Win Will Not Change Rigged Economy
  8. Paul Lectures Bernanke: U.S. Moving Towards Fascism
  9. Why The Fed Allowed Derivatives Trading on a Sunday
  10. Ron Paul: Greenspan, Bernanke Should Be Criminally Charged
  11. Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression
  12. Ron Paul: Printing Money Only Prolongs The Pain


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Mar 2 2009, 05:28 PM
Post #2


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



QUOTE
Then again, how could we expect anything else from the likes of CNBC's Burnett and Haines, who have previously demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, even commenting that gold has "no inherent value"


Gold doesn't have an intrinsic value. It is defined as valuable simply because it is a mutually-agreed-upon standard for value transactions. The ancient Inca, Egyptians, Greeks, and Chinese didn't base their currency on gold, nor did non-western premodern civilizations. Gold, in many ways, is worthless: it can't be used as a structural metal like iron alloys; it's chemically inert, unlike platinum; it can't be used to produce energy like uranium; it's not common enough to be used in power transmission like copper.

What is intrinsically valuable is material and labor. Both of these things increase in quantity over time, while the world supply of gold remains approximately the same. If we bind the value of labor to a quantity of gold, we either run out of gold very rapidly or we need constantly deflate the economy (i.e. increase the power of gold to purchase material and labor) to keep the economic system in balance. In other words, a gold standard would overwhelmingly benefit the "haves" over the "have nots."

Currency currently is not tied to rare metals, and it instead represents an abstraction of some quantity of material and labor. Exchange rates are determined by the value of that currency's labor output modified by its perceived pitfalls. The U.S. Dollar has been strong, and remains fairly strong, because the United States has an excellent record in paying its debts (compared to other nations that have, in the past defaulted or refused interest payments) and also has a very high cost of labor. The reason markets have been trending increasingly global in the last quarter-century is because the value of labor in the global west is prohibitive compared to the same labor in the global south. Material and transport costs, however, remain very inexpensive, so it makes sense to manufacture goods in developing nations and ship those goods to the post-industrial economies around the world.


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #3


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



QUOTE (Sarielite @ Mar 2 2009, 05:28 PM) *
QUOTE
Then again, how could we expect anything else from the likes of CNBC's Burnett and Haines, who have previously demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, even commenting that gold has "no inherent value"


Gold doesn't have an intrinsic value. It is defined as valuable simply because it is a mutually-agreed-upon standard for value transactions. The ancient Inca, Egyptians, Greeks, and Chinese didn't base their currency on gold, nor did non-western premodern civilizations. Gold, in many ways, is worthless: it can't be used as a structural metal like iron alloys; it's chemically inert, unlike platinum; it can't be used to produce energy like uranium; it's not common enough to be used in power transmission like copper.

What is intrinsically valuable is material and labor. Both of these things increase in quantity over time, while the world supply of gold remains approximately the same. If we bind the value of labor to a quantity of gold, we either run out of gold very rapidly or we need constantly deflate the economy (i.e. increase the power of gold to purchase material and labor) to keep the economic system in balance. In other words, a gold standard would overwhelmingly benefit the "haves" over the "have nots."

Currency currently is not tied to rare metals, and it instead represents an abstraction of some quantity of material and labor. Exchange rates are determined by the value of that currency's labor output modified by its perceived pitfalls. The U.S. Dollar has been strong, and remains fairly strong, because the United States has an excellent record in paying its debts (compared to other nations that have, in the past defaulted or refused interest payments) and also has a very high cost of labor. The reason markets have been trending increasingly global in the last quarter-century is because the value of labor in the global west is prohibitive compared to the same labor in the global south. Material and transport costs, however, remain very inexpensive, so it makes sense to manufacture goods in developing nations and ship those goods to the post-industrial economies around the world.


1) America has more debt than any other nation on Earth (check the CIA factbook) 12.25 trillion

2) The American dollar is not strong, especially compared to pre-1913/Federal Reserve Notes, when America was still on the Gold standard and hard currency


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 3 2009, 11:06 AM
Post #4


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



Nov 5, 2008
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JK05Dj01.html

Stability versus stupidity
By The Mogambo Guru

http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm

Information Clearing House started off a recent issue with a quote from
Kenneth Gerbino, referred to as "former chairman of the American Economic
Council", who notes, "Historically, the United States has been a hard-money
country. Only [since 1913] has the United States operated on a fiat money
system. During this period, paper money has depreciated over 87%."

In contrast, when the dollar was gold and gold was the dollar, "During the
preceding 140-year period, the hard currency of the United States had
actually maintained its value. Wholesale prices in 1913 were the same as in
1787."

I thought that this would have ended the discussion, and thus our work was
done and we could call it a day, go out for pizza and beer and maybe hit a
few strip clubs, but suddenly at Bloomberg.com I read, "Gold Standard Is
Wrong Salve for Global Ills".

I agree with this only because there IS no soothing salve for the globe's
economic ills with which to effect a cure, which means that there is no
economic "solution" to over-indebtedness and governmental stupidity that
does not involve incredible pain, herein defined as incredible inflation in
the necessities of life and the incredible deflation of everything that is
not.

I am pretty smug about this because I already know that every other
government in the Whole Freaking History Of The World (WFHOTW) wanted to
spend more money than it could take in through taxes and plunder, and the
ones that tried to use a fake, fatuous, foolhardy fiat currency made only
of paper and promises ended up destroying themselves and ruining their
people by creating so much money and credit, which is why the Founding
Fathers, who knew this first-hand, wrote into the constitution that the
dollar shall only be of silver and gold, which is the only thing that can
prevent the government from destroying the US by the over-creation of money
and credit!

And now the Fed and the Treasury are doing that very thing right now,
creating money at rates that are completely unprecedented in American
history and, probably, the history of the world!

Tragically, all of this money supply inflation will, as it must, result in
consumer price inflation, which is the bane of all economies, although you
would not know it from the deplorable Fredric Mishkin, whom the Bloomberg
article refers to as "an economics professor at Columbia University's
Graduate School of Business and a former Federal Reserve governor."

He says that with the price of gold futures fluctuating from US$253 to
$1,034 an ounce during the past nine years, this automatically means that
pegging currencies to bullion "would probably not produce the price
stability that the advocates of the gold standard seek." Hahahaha!

The dollar goes to (in the original Spanish) El Grande Squatto Mundo
because Mishkin and his brain-dead econometric cronies at the Fed and most
of the nation's universities keep encouraging interest rates to be
constantly lower than the rate of inflation, which increases borrowing,
which further inflates the money supply, which makes the prices of the
assets go up a lot, and the prices of everything else to drift upward, too,
in response to all of this new money and credit; so when gold goes up in
response to the Fed's irresponsible creation of money and credit creating
inflation in prices by reducing the buying power of the dollar, Mishkin
says that this means that gold is not stable! Hahaha! Too much! Hahahaha!

In fact, "hahaha" does not even BEGIN to cover it, and I will amend that
last paragraph to end with "Hahahahahahahaha!" to indicate something really
rude and disrespectful.

The Bloomberg article goes on to say that the gold standard is not
necessary, although "no doubt, the abundant liquidity created by
asset-securitization, derivatives and Asian countries amassing huge
reserves while pegging their currencies to the dollar fed both bubbles and
greed. Yet these excesses could - and should - have been harnessed by alert
central banks acting in concert." Hahahaha! Like that's going to happen!
"Trust us!" Hahaha!

http://jahtruth.net/politics.htm

Richard Daughty is general partner and COO for Smith Consultant Group,
serving the financial and medical communities, and the editor of The
Mogambo Guru economic newsletter - an avocational exercise to heap
disrespect on those who desperately deserve it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Mar 3 2009, 12:49 PM
Post #5


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
1) America has more debt than any other nation on Earth (check the CIA factbook) 12.25 trillion


In absolute dollars, yes. As a proportion of GDP, which is what really matters, the United States has less debt than Canada, Japan, Greece, Israel, and about 20 other major world nations. Furthermore, the United States has never defaulted or failed to make interest on its debts, unlike a many other nations with debt. The U.S. has a triple-A credit rating with international lending agencies like the IMF and World Bank. This makes its currency fairly stable and valuable worldwide.

QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
2) The American dollar is not strong, especially compared to pre-1913/Federal Reserve Notes, when America was still on the Gold standard and hard currency


Relative to other currencies worldwide, the U.S. Dollar is considered a safe haven because of its relative stability.

The value of the dollar is only 7 cents of what it was in the 19th century, true enough, but that hardly matters when average income of a U.S. citizen has increased fifty fold since 1900. People are far wealthier than they were in 1890, and that wealth is spread more evenly across the population than it was throughout most of the 19th century.

As historians like to say, 9/10ths of nostalgia is amnesia: the middle class in the middle of the 19th century were typically rural or semi-rural farmers that made very little money and had almost no savings. One major catastrophe (crop failure, disease, natural disaster) would set a family so deep into debt that they would lose everything. Bankruptcy protections in the 19th century were very limited, so most bankrupt families would be made homeless, asset-less, and--because most were farmers--jobless. The only real response was wage-slavery in the growing industrial revolution. In short, people in the 19th century lived short, unpleasant, brutal lives characterized by economic exploitation and poverty.


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fish
post Mar 3 2009, 11:55 PM
Post #6


Urban Guerrilla
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 288
Joined: 13-June 07
Member No.: 5,939



QUOTE (Sarielite @ Mar 4 2009, 05:49 AM) *
QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
1) America has more debt than any other nation on Earth (check the CIA factbook) 12.25 trillion


In absolute dollars, yes. As a proportion of GDP, which is what really matters, the United States has less debt than Canada, Japan, Greece, Israel, and about 20 other major world nations. Furthermore, the United States has never defaulted or failed to make interest on its debts, unlike a many other nations with debt. The U.S. has a triple-A credit rating with international lending agencies like the IMF and World Bank. This makes its currency fairly stable and valuable worldwide.

QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
2) The American dollar is not strong, especially compared to pre-1913/Federal Reserve Notes, when America was still on the Gold standard and hard currency


Relative to other currencies worldwide, the U.S. Dollar is considered a safe haven because of its relative stability.

The value of the dollar is only 7 cents of what it was in the 19th century, true enough, but that hardly matters when average income of a U.S. citizen has increased fifty fold since 1900. People are far wealthier than they were in 1890, and that wealth is spread more evenly across the population than it was throughout most of the 19th century.

As historians like to say, 9/10ths of nostalgia is amnesia: the middle class in the middle of the 19th century were typically rural or semi-rural farmers that made very little money and had almost no savings. One major catastrophe (crop failure, disease, natural disaster) would set a family so deep into debt that they would lose everything. Bankruptcy protections in the 19th century were very limited, so most bankrupt families would be made homeless, asset-less, and--because most were farmers--jobless. The only real response was wage-slavery in the growing industrial revolution. In short, people in the 19th century lived short, unpleasant, brutal lives characterized by economic exploitation and poverty.

Hey Fremen!
Gorilla With Bannana!


--------------------
There once was a man who fourteen years ago was caught up to the highest heaven!.
Whether in the body or out of the body I don't know, only God knows.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Mar 4 2009, 07:16 AM
Post #7


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



@Fish: Oh snap, you totally showed me what's what. Or something. Either learn to troll better, contribute something funny or insightful, or GTFO the internet.

QUOTE (Sarielite @ Mar 3 2009, 12:49 PM) *
The value of the dollar is only 7 cents of what it was in the 19th century, true enough, but that hardly matters when average income of a U.S. citizen has increased fifty fold since 1900.


For those keeping track at home, that means that the median income in the United States is 3.5 times the size of the median mid-19th century rate, after one adjusts for inflation.

This post has been edited by Sarielite: Mar 4 2009, 07:18 AM


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 4 2009, 06:41 PM
Post #8


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



QUOTE (Sarielite @ Mar 3 2009, 01:49 PM) *
QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
1) America has more debt than any other nation on Earth (check the CIA factbook) 12.25 trillion


In absolute dollars, yes. As a proportion of GDP, which is what really matters, the United States has less debt than Canada, Japan, Greece, Israel, and about 20 other major world nations. Furthermore, the United States has never defaulted or failed to make interest on its debts, unlike a many other nations with debt. The U.S. has a triple-A credit rating with international lending agencies like the IMF and World Bank. This makes its currency fairly stable and valuable worldwide.

QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Mar 3 2009, 11:05 AM) *
2) The American dollar is not strong, especially compared to pre-1913/Federal Reserve Notes, when America was still on the Gold standard and hard currency


Relative to other currencies worldwide, the U.S. Dollar is considered a safe haven because of its relative stability.

The value of the dollar is only 7 cents of what it was in the 19th century, true enough, but that hardly matters when average income of a U.S. citizen has increased fifty fold since 1900. People are far wealthier than they were in 1890, and that wealth is spread more evenly across the population than it was throughout most of the 19th century.

As historians like to say, 9/10ths of nostalgia is amnesia: the middle class in the middle of the 19th century were typically rural or semi-rural farmers that made very little money and had almost no savings. One major catastrophe (crop failure, disease, natural disaster) would set a family so deep into debt that they would lose everything. Bankruptcy protections in the 19th century were very limited, so most bankrupt families would be made homeless, asset-less, and--because most were farmers--jobless. The only real response was wage-slavery in the growing industrial revolution. In short, people in the 19th century lived short, unpleasant, brutal lives characterized by economic exploitation and poverty.



Paper currency is not wealth. Also the farmers of 100 or 150 years ago were better off were there a complete economic downturn than people of today - because they were farmers. If the economy so-called completely fails and falls into the sea, will corn stop growing? However if every wal-mart in America closes, where are all of the non-self sustaining urbanites go for their food?

Green economics - based on the amount of crops that are produced as well as good produced (and not based on paper fiat currency which is in reality debt money as each FRN represents X amount of dollars {in Gold} worth of debt owed to the Non-Federal Non-Reserve "Federal Reserve") is the most stable and fair of all systems as the value of paper money can be manipulated to favor those who issue it. Please see 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'.

This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Mar 4 2009, 06:44 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 5 2009, 03:15 PM
Post #9


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365




The Sheeple's Fiat Currency.......
Filed under: June 1, 2003 - 16:32
From Dan Benham ©1988-2002 d.benham@worldnet.att.net 9-8-2 http://www.rense.com/general29/ringring.htm
Thomas Jefferson, declared, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Did Jefferson have a crystal ball when he spoke these words? Has a private bank taken control over our nation's money supply?

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 comprised 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 U. S. 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 U. S. 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 nations 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 G. A. O. 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 U. S., 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 they 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. U. S. 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 E. F. T. Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all its 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 E. F. T. 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.

If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
(FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. U. S., case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations . . . federal reserve banks are listed neither as `wholly owned' government corporations [under 31 U. S. C. Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 U. S. C. Section 856] . . . 28 U. S. C. Sections
1346(b), 2671. `Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . .

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the `detailed physical performance' and `day to day operations' of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities . . . It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will.

Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U. S. C. Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ."

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears", published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia)

The original Stock-holders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, J. P. Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEY-CHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title
12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE U. S."

* Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.

`Monopoly', as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary,
6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.



Please... forward this to everyone you can!

- Wayne Hicks

"The Fourth Branch of Government, from which all of the other three branches derive what limited Constitutional authority they have, is the People!" - Wayne Hicks

Proclamation of Liberty

(Leviticus 25:10 . . . proclaim Liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof:)

We The People; in order to form a more perfect union and set ourselves free from oppression; demand that all of the legislative branches of government: federal, state and local, including the President and Vice President, shall repeal and cease to enforce all and every piece of man-made legislation, all of which is criminal; fraudulent and treason against the God in Whom we trust and also against we His people. YHWH ("I AM") has expressly forbidden men from legislating (Deuteronomy 4:2) and has commanded that any and all persons found guilty of so doing should be executed by public stoning, or by any other means available

Usury is unlawful; expressly prohibited, and therefore:

We The People demand that the Federal Reserve Bank be prohibited from charging interest and that all interest tocarry out that task. payments already paid to the FRB shall be refunded, in full, forthwith and redistributed equally amongst all the citizens of these united States of America.

We The People therefore give the legislators, including the President and Vice-President, 15 days to take the necessary steps to repeal all previous man-made legislation and revert to enforcing only God's Laws in The Bible. Failure to comply with this order from We The People and the direct Command of God; as expressed in The Bible; will result in the guilty being executed.

We The People demand that all persons convicted under man-made legislation and therefore wrongfully imprisoned shall be released immediately and the judges who unlawfully condemned and sentenced them shall take their places in prison and personally, from their own funds, not the state purse, compensate the offended persons for their wrongful imprisonment.

Furthermore: anyone collaborating with the enemy; by seeking to or enforcing and/or administering any of the aforementioned illegal legislation against We The People; is guilty of the same crimes as the legislators and will, according to God's Law, also be executed in accordance with The Law.

You have been warned.

Signed:

The Fremen.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 5 2009, 03:27 PM
Post #10


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365




Banking Cartel is the Cause of Humanity's Woes
Filed under: June 1, 2003 - 16:29



A review of Eustace Mullins The Secrets of the Federal Reserve
By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
---Thomas Jefferson

In November 1949, Eustace Mullins, 25, was a researcher in Washington DC when friends invited him to visit the famous American poet Ezra Pound, who was confined at St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital and listed as a political prisoner. A leading figure in Modern English literature, Pound was the editor and critic who introduced the world to James Joyce, W.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot. During the Second World War, he was charged with treason for broadcasts on Rome Radio that questioned the motives behind America's involvement.
Pound commissioned Mullins to examine the influence of the banking establishment on U.S. policy. Mullins spent every morning for two years in the Library of Congress and met with Pound every afternoon. The resulting manuscript, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve proved too hot for any American publisher to handle. Nineteen rejected it. One said, you'll never get this published in New York. When it finally appeared in Germany in 1955, the U.S. Military Government confiscated all 10,000 copies and burned them. Thanks to the American Patriot Friends Network, this book http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm (or click here) is freely available on line. (I recommend you save it on your desktop, as I did.) Why is it so (excuse the pun) inflammatory. Essentially it paints a picture of the world, and the role of the United States, which is radically different from the one we are given in school or in the media. Notwithstanding the war of independence against England, writes Mullins, we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain. Between 1865 and 1913, he says London bankers led by the Rothschilds used agents such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller to gain control of American industry and organize it into cartels. Where did these bankers get the money. For over 200 years, European bankers have been able to draw on the credit of their host countries to print it!

In the Seventeenth Century, the moneylenders and the aristocracy made a pact. If the king would make paper currency a liability of the state, the moneylenders would print as much as he liked! Thus the Banks of England, France and the Reichsbank came into being but they were all private corporations and remain so today.
According to this nefarious pact, the moneylenders got to charge interest on assets they created out of thin air. The aristocracy all took shares in the central banks plus they got to finance a burgeoning government and to wage costly wars. This piece of chicanery is at the heart of what plagues humanity. The bankers have a vested interest in the state (i.e. the people) incurring as much debt as possible. They are behind the Marxist, socialist and liberal movements which call for big government and social spending. They are behind the catastrophic wars of the last century. The Warburgs financed the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bank of England financed the rise of Hitler. Prescott Bush (George W Bush's grandfather) was head of Brown Brothers Harriman, which financed the construction of the Nazi war machine.

Naturally if you can create money out of thin air, your first instinct is to buy tangible assets with it. There is a powerful impulse to use debt to control nations and take over their real assets. This is the essence of the so-called Third World Debt crisis. Dedicated to owning all wealth and enslaving humanity, an irresistible vampire has been unleashed upon the world. Much of Mullins book is devoted to the subterfuge by which the United States was drawn into its lethal embrace. In 1913, the Owen-Glass Bill gave mostly foreign-controlled banks (posing as the Federal Reserve) the right to create currency based on the credit of the United States government and to charge it interest for doing it! To accomplish this, the bankers had to rig the election of 1913 in order to get Woodrow Wilson elected. Then their stooges in Congress passed the legislation on December 22 after their opponents had gone home for Christmas. This act establishes the most gigantic trust [cartel] on earth, Congressman Charles Lindbergh said at the time. When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. Mullins explains that the legislation passed just in time for the American people to finance World War One.

After maintaining standing armies for 50 years, European powers no longer could afford the luxury of another war. But the U.S. was relatively debt free and made the whole thing possible. What would WWI have been without Germany. Apparently Germany was not self-sufficient in food and would have had to sit out this war. In the nick of time, the bankers organized something called The Belgium Relief Committee which channeled billions of dollars worth of U.S. meat and potatoes not to Belgium but to Germany. When Edith Cavell, an American working in a Belgium hospital pointed this out, British intelligence had the Germans arrest and execute her.

Mullins makes a convincing case that every U.S. President since Wilson has been a lackey of the bankers. J.F. Kennedy was assassinated because he started to print his own U.S. government-backed currency. This is also the transgression that led to the murders of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield. Last year alone, the American people paid $360 billion in interest to the bankers. To maintain this massive fraud, the bankers enforce an iron grip on the political and cultural organs of the nation. According to Mullins, The New York Times is owned by the Kuhn Loeb while The Washington Post is owned by Lazard Freres. In Europe the Rothschilds own Reuters as well as the French and German news services. I presume US publishers, TV networks and movie producers are similarly beholden.

Rockefellers, Carnegies and the Fords endow the nations libraries and universities. Journalists and professors dutifully parrot fantasies about democracy and freedom.
http://jahtruth.net/democra.htm

Mind control laboratories run by the CIA and the British army (The Tavistock Institute) dream up ways to manipulate and undermine the population.


The psychological sterilization of the human female (feminism) is an example. The War on Terror is part of the banking cabal's plan to consolidate its grip on humanity in a friendly (or not so friendly) fascist New World Order. They want to secure their political, economic and social grip on the obstreperous Muslim world, as well as build up a security apparatus in case the docile populations of the West become restive. Well, at least the cosmic battle between Good and Evil is out in the open at last!



Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982 and lives in Winnipeg.
He welcomes your feedback and ideas at
Henry@savethemales.ca
Visit Henry's web site at http://www.savethemales.ca/



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 5 2009, 03:49 PM
Post #11


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



Deep Green: Ecological Economics - The Best New Idea for 2009
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/deep-green

In the future, economists will return to Earth

http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm

The year 2009 will witness a tsunami of economic appeals to fix, as
disgraced Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan put it, the 'flaw' in
their thinking. Most will get it wrong.

The proposals for bailouts, regulations, and government spending sprees all
share one tragic flaw: They assume no physical or biological limits to
human growth. Most economists cling to an 18th century mechanical universe
that conjured an 'invisible hand' of God, which would allegedly convert
private greed into public utopia.

Indeed, a few got rich but the meek inherit an Earth featuring child
slavery, sweatshops, a billion starving people, toxic garbage heaps, dead
rivers, exhausted aquifers, disappearing forests, depleted energy stores,
lopped-off mountain tops, acid seas, melting glaciers, and an atmosphere
heating up like a flambé.

Meanwhile, a rigorous sub-culture of scientists and economists have been
working to free economics from its eighteenth century quagmire by
reconciling human enterprise with the laws of physics, biology, and
ecology.

Their time has come. This year, 2009, will signal the birth of a genuinely
innovative economics that will eventually displace the patchwork
rationalisations for greed. The new ecological accounting is variously
called 'dynamic equilibrium', 'steady-state' or 'biophysical' economics.
What about technology?

Ignoring nature remains the tragic conceit of conventional economists, who
presume we can grow our economies forever without regard to quantities of
materials, energy, and pollution. Biophysical economics, on the other hand,
acknowledges that there exist no cases in nature of unlimited growth.

Dr. Albert Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Colorado University,
urges economists to learn the laws of nature. Non-material values -
creativity, dreams, love - may expand without limit, but materials and
energy in the real world remain subject to the requirements of
thermodynamics and biology. "Growth in population or rates of consumption
cannot be sustained. Smart growth is better than dumb growth," says
Bartlett, "but both destroy the environment."
http://jahtruth.net/envird.htm

What about technology? Some economists imagine that computer chips or
nanotechnology will save us from the laws of nature, but every technical
efficiency in history has resulted in more consumption of energy and
resources, not less. Remember when computers were going to save paper? That
never happened. Computers increased paper consumption from about 50 million
tonnes annually in 1950 to 250 million tonnes today. Meanwhile, we lost 600
million hectares of forest.

Nor is the internet a celestial realm where ideas are exchanged for 'free'.
Computers require copper, silicon, oil, toxic chemicals, massive energy for
server networks, and garbage heaps for techno-trash. In every
industrialised nation, energy and material consumption is increasing, not
decreasing. Technology is not energy. It costs energy.
Malthus revisited

In the 1970s, World Bank economist Herman Daly wrote Steady-State Economics
to outline the future of ecological economics. Daly makes a distinction
between 'sustainable growth', which is 'impossible', and 'sustainable
development', which is natural. "The larger system is the biosphere and the
subsystem is the human economy," says Daly. "We can develop qualitatively,
but we cannot grow beyond the biosphere's limits."

A UK commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern called global warming 'the
greatest market failure ever seen'. Pavan Sukhdev, economist for
Deutschbank, estimates that forest destruction erases $2.5 trillion in
'natural capital' annually. Mark Anielski, an economist in Edmonton,
estimates that 'ecological services' from Canada's boreal forests - carbon
capture, water filtration - are worth about $93 billion per year.

In the 19th century, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill introduced
ecological economics, warning that human expansion would eventually meet
natural limits. Industrialists have mocked Malthus and ignored Mill for two
centuries, but the evidence now suggests that the discovery of petroleum
only postponed the effects.

Many economists now recognise that Malthus and Mill were essentially
correct. A 2008 Goldman-Sachs report about commodity shortages stated, "we
see parallels with Malthusian economics." Popular investment advisor, James
Dines, told a New York Investment Conference in May that food and fuel
scarcities are a "result of a Malthusian planetary limit."

Limits to growth are real," says Anita M. Burke, former Shell Oil and B.C.
Hydro sustainability advisor. "We must embrace adaptation strategies that
create new ways of being in relationship to each other and the planet. The
solutions offered by growth economics are inadequate. These will be
replaced by an economics that accepts the limits and laws of nature."
Biophysical Economics

"Energy used by the economy is … a proxy of the amount of real work done
in our economy," says Charles A. Hall, at the State University of New York.
In the 1980s, Hall and others hypothesised, "Over time, the Dow Jones
should snake about the real amount of work." Twenty years later, a
century's market and energy data shows that whenever the Dow Jones
Industrial Average spikes faster than US energy consumption, it crashes:
1929, 1970s, the dot.com bubble, and now with the mortgage collapse.

World oil production plateaued in 2005, and as the price of oil rose from
$35/barrel in 2004 to $147 in 2008, it added a $3.5 trillion annual cost to
human civilisation. "That reduced discretionary income," says Hall. "The
domino that led to a decline in aggregate demand, particularly for suburban
real estate." Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets, agrees:
"Oil shocks create global recessions."

A popular Wall Street publication, The Corporate Examiner, is planning a
special edition this year on 'the end of faith-based economics', with an
article by Hall and his colleagues. In October, Hall convened the first
International Conference on Biophysical Economics in Syracuse, New York,
and will publish a book this year. "Since economics is about the production
and transfer of physical things or services that require energy," says
Hall, "it is a biophysical science, not a social science."

Robert Costanza, Director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at
the University of Vermont, will launch two periodicals this year: an annual
academic anthology, The Year in Ecological Economics, and a bimonthly
magazine, Solutions, for technical and popular articles about ecology and
economics. "To repair our economic system," explains editor Ida
Kubiszewski, we must realise that "the mounting environmental and social
problems we face are systemic. Articles in Solutions will employ
whole-systems thinking."

The editorial board includes pioneers of ecological economics - Herman
Daly, Ernest Collenbach, and Vancouver's Bill Rees, who developed
'ecological footprint' analysis at the University of British Columbia. Rees
calculates that human consumption of the biosphere is 'already 30 per cent
into overshoot', consuming more than the ecosystem can replenish. "We must
account for the environment," says Rees, "reduce total consumption, and
then address equitable distribution."

"We are dying of consumption," says Peter Dauvergne, sustainability advisor
at UBC and author of The Shadows of Consumption. "The unequal globalisation
of the costs of consumption is putting ecosystems and billions of people at
risk."

To honestly achieve a "sustainable" economy, humanity must step through a
paradigm shift, as profound as the transition in the sixteenth century when
Copernicus showed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.
Likewise, ecology teaches us that humanity is not the centre of life on the
planet. Just as the Pope's henchmen refused to look through Galileo's
telescope, some economists avoid looking out the window to see what keeps
humanity alive: photosynthesis, precious materials, and concentrated
energy.

"Sooner or later," as ecologist David Abram puts it, "technological
civilisation must accept the invitation of gravity and settle back … into
the rhythms of a more-than-human Earth."

In the 21st century, human enterprise has reached the scale of the planet.
We have to account for ourselves on nature's balance sheet. This is
biophysical economics. It appears inevitable. Biophysical culture is what
we will make of it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th February 2020 - 02:37 AM