Conquer Club

TRUE OR FALSE

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:48 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:Who controls the Federal Reserve in your story? It is a private bank after all.

Who got the $16 trillion between 2007-2010 according to the only, and just partial, audit ever carried out there.

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to do it after the turn of the last century?

The gang councils do realize it, but they see it provides them with funds of the backs of their members, and they face the threat of all gangs if they choose to break from the system.
Kind of how the Church ran things...


I know you're not inclined to explain any details about your conspiracy theories, but let's run a little fact-checking.


The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System plays a major role in making U.S. monetary policy.
The seven members of the Board are appointed by the President of the United States for staggered 14-year terms.
The Board of Governors supervises the work of the Federal Reserve Banks and issues a variety of banking and consumer-credit regulations.


The Federal Reserve System is supervised by the Board of Governors. Located in Washington, D.C., the Board is a federal government agency consisting of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board has about 1,850 employees.

http://newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed46.html

So, "the Fed" is not quite private as you imagine (also, their profits are controlled by the Treasury), and the US President exerts a strong influence on the BoG of the FRS (he handpicks them). If you want to explain your conspiracy theory (beyond "those bad guys"), you'll have to address this issue of entanglement--which doesn't end here, but for the sake of brevity, I won't go on.


Maybe you can explain how "They" control the US Treasury, the entire Federal Reserve System, and the US President while preventing competitors (e.g. other banks, 'power-seekers', and voters) from wresting away their control. If all of the competitors amazingly collude--excluding of course nearly all voters, then how does that cartel remain viable?

During this, you'd have to explain how nearly all academics are oblivious to this Grand Conspiracy--or maybe they collude with Them. And, which credible academics support your findings? Basically, you'd have to lay out a strong theory for anyone to reasonably consider your conspiracy theory, and it helps to provide some empirical content/sources.

Or you can dodge the subject by rambling about chemtrails, 9/11, and Israeli kitten commandos who carry out God's Will or some such story.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:11 pm

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.” – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board as ministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." — Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

They seem to "imagine" it's private.

As for preventing competitors from wresting it's control:

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Why doesn't anyone compete with OPEC? OPEC does have competitors, but since the US only allows Fed printed currency to be used as money, they are protected by US law against competition. Ron Paul has been asking that competing currency be allowed. This is interesting as a presidential candidate, he didn't get much air time:



You are against the Fed, and the will bury you.

Only the Fed can issue money. If you feel that $16 trillion done without any "PUBLIC" knowledge isn't sufficient to end a candidacy, when that candidates demand of a partial audit is what revealed the money in the first place, I would recount the numbers in a trillion.

The Rothchilds funded De Beers, whose founder Rhodes set up the scholarship of the name. They funded lots of people though: Rockefeller, the Carnagies, and many others.

If you just look at what Wikipedia credits the Rockefellers for setting up.

The Council on Foreign Relations - David, David Jr., Nelson, John D. 3rd, John D. IV (Jay), Peggy Dulany, Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Trilateral Commission -David, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Bilderberg Group - David, John D. IV.
The Asia Society - John D. 3rd, John D. IV, Charles, David.
The Population Council - John D. 3rd.
The Council of the Americas - David.
The Group of Thirty - The Rockefeller Foundation.
The World Economic Forum - David.
The Brookings Institution - Junior.
The Peterson Institute (Formerly the Institute for International Economics) - David, Monica.
The International Executive Service Corps - David.
The Institute for Pacific Relations - Junior.
The League of Nations - Junior.
The United Nations - Junior, John D. 3rd, Nelson, David, Peggy Dulany, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The United Nations Association - David. Monica.

The too big to fail banking world is small, and friendly. If you look at what other things have been set up by them and their friends you would see that: yes, they have written neo-classical economics.

With nearly unlimited money, they set up their "competition" as their lieutenants. With the power to issue money without check to whoever they want, controlling education is not a big deal: they founded Unesco.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby AndyDufresne on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:46 pm

I once knew a man who spoke ill will against the Fed. He died a few weeks later. He was 92, and in a nursing home.

They got to him.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:50 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.” – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board as ministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." — Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

They seem to "imagine" it's private.



Do you know what the difference is between the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve?

Did you know that the BoG is appointed by the president instead of Lindbergh's 1923 unexplained claim "by a purely profiteering group"?

Do you find that cherry-picking pithy quotes sufficiently supports your grand conspiracy theory?

Where are you pulling your quotes from?

I understand that collusion--TO SOME DEGREE--is occurring and has occurred IN VARIOUS SECTORS--not the entire economy, or entire X, but you don't seem to. I'll give you an example of what I'm asking for. If you read Rothbard's America's Great Depression, you'll find how much control the president of the NY Federal Bank exerted over US monetary policy during the 1920s and 1930s. You see how much narrower that is?--compared to your sweeping claims? You see how much easier that is to explain, instead of your World Dominance by Them theory?


_sabotage_ wrote:As for preventing competitors from wresting it's control:

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Why doesn't anyone compete with OPEC? OPEC does have competitors, but since the US only allows Fed printed currency to be used as money, they are protected by US law against competition. Ron Paul has been asking that competing currency be allowed. This is interesting as a presidential candidate, he didn't get much air time:



You are against the Fed, and the will bury you.

Only the Fed can issue money. If you feel that $16 trillion done without any "PUBLIC" knowledge isn't sufficient to end a candidacy, when that candidates demand of a partial audit is what revealed the money in the first place, I would recount the numbers in a trillion.

The Rothchilds funded De Beers, whose founder Rhodes set up the scholarship of the name. They funded lots of people though: Rockefeller, the Carnagies, and many others.

If you just look at what Wikipedia credits the Rockefellers for setting up.

The Council on Foreign Relations - David, David Jr., Nelson, John D. 3rd, John D. IV (Jay), Peggy Dulany, Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Trilateral Commission -David, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Bilderberg Group - David, John D. IV.
The Asia Society - John D. 3rd, John D. IV, Charles, David.
The Population Council - John D. 3rd.
The Council of the Americas - David.
The Group of Thirty - The Rockefeller Foundation.
The World Economic Forum - David.
The Brookings Institution - Junior.
The Peterson Institute (Formerly the Institute for International Economics) - David, Monica.
The International Executive Service Corps - David.
The Institute for Pacific Relations - Junior.
The League of Nations - Junior.
The United Nations - Junior, John D. 3rd, Nelson, David, Peggy Dulany, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The United Nations Association - David. Monica.

The too big to fail banking world is small, and friendly. If you look at what other things have been set up by them and their friends you would see that: yes, they have written neo-classical economics.

With nearly unlimited money, they set up their "competition" as their lieutenants. With the power to issue money without check to whoever they want, controlling education is not a big deal: they founded Unesco.


Haha, wtf. What does that have to do with your previous claim that "THEY" (whoever they are) have successfully prevented competitors from wresting control for themselves while maintaining a viable cartel which controls the Federal Reserve and/or FRS which controls the US and now the world?

Nothing. The use of petrodollars doesn't explain that (also, any non-OPEC producer of petroleum competes against OPEC in the world market). Fox News omitting Ron Paul from their news reports doesn't. There's plenty of other founders and co-founders of other organizations which exert various amounts of influence on various segments within civil society, the economy, and the polity.

Shall we expand what you have to explain? Somehow an ambiguous cartel with Carnegie, Rothschilds, and unnamed accomplices are controlling the media(?), the Fed and/or FRS, the USG, all education(?), economic thought (lol), oh and OPEC + petrodollars, I guess. Anything else you wanna throw in there?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:51 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I once knew a man who spoke ill will against the Fed. He died a few weeks later. He was 92, and in a nursing home.

They got to him.


--Andy



I knew that old man. This is what he saw before he died:



Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:17 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I know you're not inclined to explain any details about your conspiracy theories, but let's run a little fact-checking.


The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System plays a major role in making U.S. monetary policy.
The seven members of the Board are appointed by the President of the United States for staggered 14-year terms.
The Board of Governors supervises the work of the Federal Reserve Banks and issues a variety of banking and consumer-credit regulations.


The Federal Reserve System is supervised by the Board of Governors. Located in Washington, D.C., the Board is a federal government agency consisting of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board has about 1,850 employees.

http://newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed46.html

So, "the Fed" is not quite private as you imagine (also, their profits are controlled by the Treasury), and the US President exerts a strong influence on the BoG of the FRS (he handpicks them). If you want to explain your conspiracy theory (beyond "those bad guys"), you'll have to address this issue of entanglement--which doesn't end here, but for the sake of brevity, I won't go on.


You believe that the president or a presidential candidate is even qualified to make a decision on appointments? Or they actually understand the necessary information to make such a decision?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:15 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I know you're not inclined to explain any details about your conspiracy theories, but let's run a little fact-checking.


The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System plays a major role in making U.S. monetary policy.
The seven members of the Board are appointed by the President of the United States for staggered 14-year terms.
The Board of Governors supervises the work of the Federal Reserve Banks and issues a variety of banking and consumer-credit regulations.


The Federal Reserve System is supervised by the Board of Governors. Located in Washington, D.C., the Board is a federal government agency consisting of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board has about 1,850 employees.

http://newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed46.html

So, "the Fed" is not quite private as you imagine (also, their profits are controlled by the Treasury), and the US President exerts a strong influence on the BoG of the FRS (he handpicks them). If you want to explain your conspiracy theory (beyond "those bad guys"), you'll have to address this issue of entanglement--which doesn't end here, but for the sake of brevity, I won't go on.


You believe that the president or a presidential candidate is even qualified to make a decision on appointments? Or they actually understand the necessary information to make such a decision?


It depends on one's assumptions about a president's behavior. Do presidents more frequently seek to maximize personal utility (via votes, prestige, control) or do they mostly seek to maximize the general utility of all citizens? Given the practical impossibility of knowing how to attain the latter, then we can modify it to "mostly seek to maximize the utility of their constituents (roughly 1/3 of voter population)." That's a bit more plausible.

So, if I wanted to still go with the latter, I'd have to explain how a president benefits the public/his constituents in something as seemingly irrelevant as appointing the BoG.... I don't see how that's connected, so appointing BoG is more about increasing personal utility (power/leverage over others).

So.. I believe the president is qualified to make such decisions--in the sense that he's qualified enough to know which candidates provide him with the best chances of maximizing his influence/leverage over others. Give a president a team of assistants to filter out the useful from the less useful, and I don't see how that decision requires much of the president's technical understanding. All he needs to know is "he who is most agreeable with my goal/agenda." (Right? It's not like Obama would appoint a radical, free market economist to any position on the BoG; that would make his operations run less smoothly).

*there's a minor caveat in here, but meh
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby mrswdk on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Who of us is qualified to do anything?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:44 pm

Yes, the president is in complete control of the Fed and whole bailout for 700 billion wasn't just an act, because the Fed wasn't busy lending Citigroup alone over $2 trillion dollars to use at it likes during a financial crisis when everything can be bought up cheaply. The US people had a real choice and there was a real debate. If the vote had been no, the Fed would have ceased and desisted.

The banks have no more control over the Fed than the voters.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:55 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:Yes, the president is in complete control of the Fed and whole bailout for 700 billion wasn't just an act, because the Fed wasn't busy lending Citigroup alone over $2 trillion dollars to use at it likes during a financial crisis when everything can be bought up cheaply. The US people had a real choice and there was a real debate. If the vote had been no, the Fed would have ceased and desisted.

The banks have no more control over the Fed than the voters.


Oh, I get it. When you don't know how to explain your Grand Conspiracy Theory, you'll create a straw man and attack that.



Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:20 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:Who controls the Federal Reserve in your story? It is a private bank after all.

Who got the $16 trillion between 2007-2010 according to the only, and just partial, audit ever carried out there.

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to do it after the turn of the last century?

The gang councils do realize it, but they see it provides them with funds of the backs of their members, and they face the threat of all gangs if they choose to break from the system.
Kind of how the Church ran things...


I know you're not inclined to explain any details about your conspiracy theories, but let's run a little fact-checking.


The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System plays a major role in making U.S. monetary policy.
The seven members of the Board are appointed by the President of the United States for staggered 14-year terms.
The Board of Governors supervises the work of the Federal Reserve Banks and issues a variety of banking and consumer-credit regulations.


The Federal Reserve System is supervised by the Board of Governors. Located in Washington, D.C., the Board is a federal government agency consisting of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board has about 1,850 employees.

http://newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed46.html

So, "the Fed" is not quite private as you imagine (also, their profits are controlled by the Treasury), and the US President exerts a strong influence on the BoG of the FRS (he handpicks them). If you want to explain your conspiracy theory (beyond "those bad guys"), you'll have to address this issue of entanglement--which doesn't end here, but for the sake of brevity, I won't go on.


Maybe you can explain how "They" control the US Treasury, the entire Federal Reserve System, and the US President while preventing competitors (e.g. other banks, 'power-seekers', and voters) from wresting away their control. If all of the competitors amazingly collude--excluding of course nearly all voters, then how does that cartel remain viable?

During this, you'd have to explain how nearly all academics are oblivious to this Grand Conspiracy--or maybe they collude with Them. And, which credible academics support your findings? Basically, you'd have to lay out a strong theory for anyone to reasonably consider your conspiracy theory, and it helps to provide some empirical content/sources.

Or you can dodge the subject by rambling about chemtrails, 9/11, and Israeli kitten commandos who carry out God's Will or some such story.


You suggested that the president exerts a strong influence over the BoG of the FRS as he hand picks them. How can he exert any influence over them after an audit reveals that they have been lending out money to banks the entire time one out-going and one in-coming president were pleading with the American people to bail the banks out at less than 5% of what the Fed was already giving them? The president has no more idea than you or I how much the Fed is lending to who, where, when, why or how much.

Of course, to me this is all nonsense, because they buy all candidates anyway and it doesn't matter how much influence the president has on them, because it is them that have the influence on him.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:56 pm

Okay, dude. Good luck.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:51 am

Question: Who owns the Federal Reserve Banks?

Answer: The Federal Reserve Banks of each region are owned by (issue their stock exclusively to) the member banks of that same region. The member banks are privately owned corporations. Thus the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. This is a matter of law and anyone may read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 for themselves (see below).

Answer: Three groups of people deny this fact, for differing reasons:

The first group consists of the private owners of the Federal Reserve Banks, and their shills. It is obviously not in their interest that the American people realize that private bankers own what most people regard as a part of the public treasury and government. The people would doubtless not like it if they knew that the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks receive 6% interest (raised higher in the past) per year on their stock ownership, risk free. The people would be legitimately concerned to know that the member bank stockholders elect six of the nine members (i.e., 2/3rds) of the Boards of the reserve banks of their regions. Rather than regulating or controlling the activities of private banks in their regions, the opposite is the case.
The second group consists of those persons who, in their ignorance, have believed the propaganda of the Federal Reserve Banks, which sometimes issue ambiguous, doublespeak statements attempting to obfuscate their private bank ownership. Here is a typical example from the NY Fed website, quite easily seen through: Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really “private” companies, but rather are “owned” by the citizens of the United States Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank’s of their region the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks.
The third group consists of those people who consider that because the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate that the Fed is firmly under government control and that this is sufficiently equivalent to ownership to put them at ease (never mind the outright private bank control of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks). Let’s hear how the Fed itself regards such indirect government control (again from the NY Fed website): The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

If you are a little uncomfortable with your Fed having private aspects, you are not alone. Notice also the contradiction with the other NY Fed quote above, which claims the citizens of the US own the Fed here it claims no one owns it (same website). The truth and the law is that the member banks own and control all 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Another interesting doublespeak quote from the NY Fed website: Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government. A little independence is a good thing, unless that independence is in reality virtually total and the entity involved controls the nation’s money and economy. Think about it: if the Fed is independent from the government that created it, then who controls it – it has no brain of its own – it is not a person. If it is not controlled by our government, then by whom?


Question: Doesn’t the fact that the President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System make it a quasi-governmental sort of entity?

Answer: Yes, but how “quasi” is quasi-enough? The Board of Governors of the System consists of 7 members, one appointed every two years (one term begins every two years, on February 1 of even-numbered years, a full year after inauguration day) by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 14 year terms. Wow -those are really long terms. Why? Let’s see: if a new President comes into office pledged to reform the Fed, end its independence from effective government oversight, throw the rascals out and replace them with his own appointees, he had better be very patient, as he can only replace one member every two years. So in his four year term (10 years less than Fed Governors – terms) he can replace only two of the 7 members. Of course, he had better be able to sustain the ire of the remaining Governors (almost all connected to financial institutions indirectly in various academic and think-tank institutions financed by banks and bank grants or loans, or which they hope to join in revolving door relationships after their single terms are up), who can run the economy up, down or sideways, in the interim.

But assuming the President can sustain the fight with the Fed, its bank-PAC financed cheerleaders in the Senate, voters upset over a suddenly sinking economy, the banks who control the Fed and the media giants they also own, then all this brave but foolhardy President has to do is get elected to a second term, and hang on long enough to appoint two more Board members. Thus, assuming all of this goes well, in the span of seven years (a glacial pace in American politics), near the end of his second term, he can finally begin some reform – if he manages to get his four appointees confirmed, is still in office and has any allies left – even in his own party. We think the prefixed word quasi-governmental is a good one, if you understand quasi- to mean pseudo.

Keep in mind also the distinction between the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole. The private ownership of the 12 Federal Reserve banks we addressed above. “Federal Reserve System” usually refers to the entire framework established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, including those 12, privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, and the Board of Governors of the system, which meets in Washington D.C. The Fed Board of Governors was also established by the Act of 1913. These are the 7 members with 14-year terms, also mentioned above. Two of them are appointed by the President to 4-year terms as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board (largely nominal positions – no extra votes). They, of course, are not owned like corporation stock is owned. So when someone is trying to mislead folks by denying any private ownership of the Fed, they will inevitably refer to the Federal Reserve System (rather than to the Federal Reserve Banks) and declare it is not privately owned (which is partly true [the Fed Board of Governors is not "owned"], and partly false [the 12 Federal Reserve banks are]). We have addressed these two elements in detail, above.

Question: Have the Courts had to decide whether the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned or not?

Answer: Yes, in several cases. Here is one of them on point which went up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES

John L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Appellee. No. 80-5905. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 2, 1982; Decided April 19, 1982; As Amended June 24, 1982

“Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, Jr., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.


. . .Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two-thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for members banks, discounting the notes of members banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.


. . . The Banks are listed as neither “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, . . .

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds . . .”

Let’s sum up: The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional banks, the stock of which is owned and the Boards controlled by the member banks, which are privately owned bank corporations. These institutions receive 6% profit on their funds paid into the Fed, rain or shine, peace or war (sometimes more).

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is an independent (its own word) entity “within” the government (i.e., something much like an independent, internal parasite in a host organism), with 14 year, reform-proof terms (i.e., only one of 7 can be replaced every two years).

The Fed was deliberately designed to appear as a sort of government body to hide the fact that it is a private banking cartel whose member banks share in the vast profits of seigniorage (i.e., the difference between the cost of printing/minting or otherwise creating money [a few cents per $100], and its face value). Yes, the Department of the Treasury does still mint our coins (at the US mint) but that represents under 1% of the US money supply, the great bulk of which is simply bankbook entries – electronic keyboard impulses in computer memories – created by banks on-the-spot to fund loans they make in response to loans applications their “customers” submit (hence the competition by banks for your loan applications and credit card borrowing).
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:04 am

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System1. Appointment and Qualification of Members

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, for terms of fourteen years except as hereinafter provided, but each appointive member of the Federal Reserve Board in office on such date shall continue to serve as a member of the Board until February 1, 1936, and the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency shall continue to serve as members of the Board until February 1, 1936. In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country. The members of the Board shall devote their entire time to the business of the Board and shall each receive an annual salary of $15,000, payable monthly, together with actual necessary traveling expenses.

Prior to the enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, approved Aug. 23, 1935, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was known as the Federal Reserve Board. See note to the third paragraph of section 1. The portion of this paragraph dealing with salaries of Board members has in effect been amended numerous times, most recently by Executive Order. Prior to the act of December 27, 2000, section 1002 of which revised the executive schedule, the salary of the chairman of the Board was set at executive schedule level 2 and the salary of other members at level 3. The salary of the chairman of the Board is now set at executive schedule level I, and the salary of other members at level II (see 2 USC 358 and 5 USC 5313 and 5314).]
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:52 am

I know there is an "Official" or "Establishment" history which dominates the history textbooks, publishing, and media. The official line always assumes that events such as war, revolution, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can Never be the result of a conspiracy or result from a premeditated group action.

In 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of WW2. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the establishment after WW1. However these critics ignore The Sherman Act ie the anti-trust laws where conspiracy is the basic excepted theory. If there can be conspiracy in business why not in banking, education, military complex and political?
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:58 am

Then we might have to go down the whole theory of secret societies and if they really are viable of mass control through a few high powered positions.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:19 am

Is this the part about the Masons?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:45 am

We can go that route to a certain degree. Do Masons run everything? In my opinion... not sure, dont know enough. But after reading Morals and Dogma and seeing how many members are in high ranking positions it makes me wonder. Skull and Bones would be another example of secret societies. Masons may not be considered secret societies because their membership is published. Skull and Bones on the other hand is truly secret. The Masons basic civil philosophy is to mold the less intelligent. Pike talks alot about Force and its many uses against and for the public.


Quote Albert Pike: " The rough Ashlar is the people, as a mass, rude and unorganized. The perfect Ashlar, or cubical stone, symbol of perfection, is the State, the rulers depriving their powers from the consent of the governed...."
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby _sabotage_ on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:21 pm

The connections are between the bank, industry, education, military, politics, intelligence gathering, medicine, media and energy.

At the heads of all of these organizations we have a tightly woven network of families, generations of cooperation in business, members only clubs, members only voting powers.

They write our laws, decide our wars, play with our economies to make us ever more dependent, make us sick and dependent on their medicine, and now want our food.

They will poison us, infect us, drug us, imprison us, rob us, lie to us and kill us.

They control the access to technology, the rate of "improvement", the rate of mechanical decline, the resources, the labour, and the information.

There are people who come forward to denounce them. General Butler, President Kennedy, Ron Paul. Butler's testimony disappears from the records, Kennedy is assassinated, and Ron Paul dismissed as a racist conspiracy theorist.

But you would like a clear cut example of the US government working in tandem with a group of conspirators. Let's try hemp.

Hemp according to wikipedia, had three main adversaries demanding it be criminalized: Hearst, Du Pont and Andrew Mellon.

Andrew William Mellon (/ˈmɛlən/; March 24, 1855 – August 26, 1937) was an American banker, businessman, industrialist, philanthropist, art collector, and United States Secretary of the Treasury from March 4, 1921 to February 12, 1932.

Wiki quote:

He advised President Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

DuPont from wiki-invest

DuPont (NYSE:DD) is a global chemical and technology conglomerate that manufactures materials used in automotive manufacturing, construction, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and electronics.[1] Agriculture & Nutrition, Safety & Protection, and Electronics are the growth centers for the company, while its Performance Coatings, Performance Materials, and Performance Chemicals divisions serve as reliable sources of cash flow. [2]

Dupont has also manufactures genetically modified plants used to produce renewable energy such as ethanol and biobutanol. Rising oil prices have led to higher demand for alternative energy, and many states have started to require that ethanol be added to gasoline to reduce pollution and conserve oil. Since DuPont's acquisition of Pioneer Hi-Bred in 1999, the company has grown to become the world's largest seed company by sales, providing genetically modified plants that produce the highest levels of corn or soybean per acreage.

Hemp threatened Hearst because he controlled most of the paper at the time. It was somehow unknown to the scientists at the time that hemp could be used to make paper. So they tried and found that it was ok. Why it was unknown to these scientists is quite at odds with the fact that hemp has been the most widely used plant to make paper in history. The conclusion of the scientists were that hemp could produce paper and at a rate 4 times that of Hearst's trees.

In the same year, a decorticator was invented which greatly improved the retting process of hemp. Hemp at this time was being thrown away, used as animal bedding and wasn't very valuable.

Hearst himself could not make use of hemp because of it's inherent qualities.

Hemp plants cultivated for seed have a thick inner cellulose core which makes up 70% of the dry plant. When retted from the plant by decomposing or breaking the binding polymers lignin and pectin; the finished product is light and fluffy, the unfinished product is light and bulky. Transporting the product in an unprocessed state is not economical.

When hemp is used as a rotation crop, it replenishes the soil, acts as a natural herbicide, and prevents the need for herbicides later on in the rotation, requires little water, and if grown after a legume crop or with a legume ground cover, requires no fertilizer. The seed crop is a super food, a known known cancer cure and been used in lotions for thousands of years. As such, growing hemp, the competing raw material for paper, would make perfect since to farmers. It improves their land instead of requiring a summer fallow, it has a primary product with advancements for it's current waste by-product.

If a Hearst competitor wanted to set up under the Hearst system, he would need to buy vast tracks of land, set up huge supply chains, and break into Hearst's existing market. Hearst just has to drive down prices long enough to buy his competition out.

But with hemp, a competitor can compete in any local arena, competition would be hard to direct and production impossible to centralize.

But Hearst was not part of the "Grand Conspiracy" to my knowledge. He was only acting in his own interests, a tool of the Grand Conspiracy.

Every industry listed except electronics hemp can do better than oil for DuPont.

automotive manufacturing, hemp has been used by several car companies in automotive manufacturing, resulting in a superior product with a grand benefit for the environment.

construction, Most housing consists of seven layers, manufactured abroad with dangerous chemical additives. Hemp housing consists of a single layer of material which is non toxic, fire resistant, rot resistant, natural regulates humidity, soundproof, long lasting, and requires less than 50% of the energy of contemporary housing. It is cheap, reduces the need for specialist tradesmen and is carbon neutral.

pharmaceuticals, hemp is naturally biodegradable. The cellulose is easily broken down by the body, whereas oil based pharmaceuticals contain toxins which remain in your system and cause cancer. These pharmaceuticals are banned in Europe.

agriculture, as mentioned above, but more distinctly hemp offers smaller scale farmers a chance to survive with less inputs and more outputs preventing major control over the food industry.

Performance Coatings, Performance Materials, and Performance Chemicals

Hemp oil is a natural waterproofing agent, shown in tests to be at least three times better than all competitors. Hemp is out performs nylon in all categories except processing technology. Hemp is a cancer cure rather than cancer causing chemical base.

On most fronts, DuPont would appear to have a demand for a plant which is the world's widest range producer with a high cellulose count, it can produce up to 5 times the fuel as corn using natural enzyme retting, it can produce most of their products with a readily available cellulose source and only interferes with a few of their industries. Most of the industries were in the future anyway, so why would DuPont want to be supplied by the oil industry instead of the agricultural industry?

The DuPonts share a long history with the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers share a long history with the Rothschilds and Andrew Mellon shares a long history with the Rothschilds.

Who are Mellon's enterprising people? What are these morals he feels people will gain through working harder? And how does this relate to hemp, the DuPonts and the Fed?

Mellon was apparently the richest man in the world during his life. He was a banker. Is he suggesting that the enterprising people are the bankers whose money makes them morally superior?

Whatever the answer, his will has been done. We worker harder for less, are more attached to his moral values and industry belongs in the hands of his banking friends. How he intended this to bring down the living costs while requiring more work, is unknown to me.

To show that this is part of a larger conspiracy is not too difficult.

Access to the information on hemp when it was still possible to obtain it, clearly showed that it was a clear choice to cutting down rainforests throughout the calls for saving our forests, yet was not proposed by the environmental sector, the agricultural sector, the biological sector, the energy sector or the chemical sector who could have taken advantage of it.

Universities don't teach it. When my sustainability class talked about potential for biofuel, it was not mentioned, when better crop rotations were introduced, it was not mentioned, when alternative energies were discussed, it was not mentioned, when oil based products were linked to cancer, it was not discussed. When high energy inputs of our housing were discussed, it was not discussed. What we did discuss was weather data from the Rothschilds data network, the potential of carbon tax credits a meant to fail Rothschilds project, the Rothschild's dam project was promoted, the Rothschilds man made climate change agenda was promoted, and our ability to sustain ourselves was demoted.

I understand that there wasn't a lot of citable data available for a long period of time and the "old" data does not meet modern standards, but there has been quite a bit of peer-reviewed research in Europe, Canada and Australia for over ten years. The enzyme retting technique was invented in Canada and provides a chemical free, water free, heavy industry free method of producing hemp products that are superior to all predecessors in all ways. Not discussed. At least not by professors. Whenever it was brought up by students though, the professors would not discuss it.

So it would appear that though hemp can solve many of the environmental and sustainable issues of the day, it is not open for discussion, especially in those arenas.

This has gotten way too long and I know I have not come to any conclusion, but I will continue with it later if anyone is interested.

The essence of it is, that the problems we hear about on a daily basis, were caused by those who say they now will solve them, but they have no intention of giving us any choice. They are already carrying out their activities and soon will be using the failed carbon scheme in Australia to legitimize their on-going efforts to degrade the common person.
Last edited by _sabotage_ on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:23 pm

I too look forward to madness' sweet, sweet relief.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby mrswdk on Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:18 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I too look forward to madness' sweet, sweet relief.


--Andy


Made me laugh. The previous page of this thread is inexplicable.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:01 pm

I am not saying all Masons are corrupt individuals praying to Lucifer the Light Bearer in a satanic way. It just depends on how you interpret the word Lucifer and its meaning under different contexts. Masons are required under Masonic oaths and Masonic understanding that a Mason of power must appoint another Mason if one appliese for a position over any other individual. Is this a good idea? Conflict of interest?


It must be a coincidence then that so many Masons are in political power.
The Congressional Record of Sept.9, 1987 that members of the Masonic Order constitute "about half of the Judiciary Committee."
The Congressional Record also indicates that Masons made up no less than 60 members of the House of Represetatives.
The Wall Street Journal in 1987 reported that 15 of 40 presidents were Masons. 8 of 9 justices who signed Brown v Board of Education were Masons.

Its not so much a grand conspiracy as it is a Masonic philosophy that promotes their philosophy upon the world. It can be used in almost any application.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby _sabotage_ on Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:09 pm

Those who harm us are rewarded generation after generation. They maintain their position by creating a falsified story of scarcity. When anything challenges their story, it is locked behind Kafka's door, bought out or terminated.

Those who say we should fear global warming, are those causing it and preventing us from fighting it or even knowing the reality of it. They are also the same ones who are providing us with the tools to conquer it. But these just further empower them and weaken us.

We have the tools to fight though. Hemp will free us from their bonds. Oyster can cheaply filter water while producing the enzyme ligninase, shiitake produce pectinase. The king oyster mushroom can accumulate aluminum oxide nano particles at a rate of 75% in 7 days, they grow on the roots of herbaceous plants. When the geoengineering "starts", don't forget the mushroom.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: TRUE OR FALSE

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:19 pm

I enjoy the jedi mind tricks. "This is not the scarcity that you are looking for." Nano hemp oyster mushrooms aluminating oxygen chemtrailing 75% rates when the geoengineering starts; free us from their bonds.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron