UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Ron Paul EXPOSES FED (VIDEO)


2/21/07 5:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2190
 
Ron Paul exposed the Fed. Speaking directly to Ben Bernacke he even exposed how congress has no control over the FED or its policies. VOTE RON PAUL for president in 2008 <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A4kxTkhwR_Q"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>
2/21/07 5:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38632
You're trying to give me a stroke. Admit it.
2/21/07 5:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hawkeyefan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 22513
2/21/07 5:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2191
Executive Order 11110 was issued by president John Kennedy on June 4, 1963. This executive order allowed the US Secretary of the Treasury[1], as per delegated authority given to the President by the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, to issue silver certificates against silver bullion. The major change affected by this order was that the printing of paper money could again be carried out without any reliance on the Federal Reserve System, which by this time had become the sole entity responsible for currency distribution and valuation in the United States. Very little of this silver-backed money was ever issued, with the project largely being abandoned after Kennedy's assassination only a few months later. No President since JFK has ever availed himself of what this order allowed and President Reagan took actions to remove the power. This order was issued as part of a series of actions that were intended to lessen the strain of the US Treasury's need of silver and gradually move the US off of the silver standard. The order was needed due to the passage of Public Law 88-36 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act and other related monetary measures. One result was that after the repeals, only the president could issue new silver certificates. The Federal Reserve could replace them, but only in larger denominations. The thrust of the order returned the authority back to the US Treasury to issue new silver certificates and specify denominations. This allowed for the Federal Reserve to distribute and exchange currency at lower denominations that met the growing economic need. The order was taken off the books in 1987 with E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87. The authoritative basis for the order had been nullified in 1982 with the passage of PL 97-258
2/21/07 5:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2192
No offense Steve, but when somone who has the status of Ron Paul versus well. Steve72 you arent at the top of that list. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ji_G0MqAqq8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>
2/21/07 5:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38635
No offense Steve, but when somone who has the status of Ron Paul versus well. Steve72 you arent at the top of that list. First, I should say that I can't view the vid at work, so I can't really argue anything it says. Since we've established that you value "status" more than the merits of the argument, does that mean that I just need to show you people of equivalent or greater "status" than Ron to convince you?
2/22/07 10:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2193
Steve your entire argument lies on the fact that congress had the authority to even establish the Federal Reserve act. Since they never had the authority to do so, any and all of your arguments for the biggest fraud in all of America are null and void.
2/22/07 10:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38641
I watched the first video last night. I have already presented the argument that Congress did have the authority to create the Fed. Your response (and that presented by Ron Paul in that video) is nothing other than an assertion that they did not...there is no argument, just a flat, conclusory statement. Your attitude appears to be that, since Ron Paul said it, and he's got more "status" than me, he must be right (and doesn't need to lay out an argument to convince you.) So I ask again, since status impresses you more than logic, do I just need to track down some senators who thing that the Fed is Constitutional?
2/22/07 10:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JonnySak
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/27/2005
Posts: 2488
Ron just touched on the Fed being unconstitutional (many legal scholars agree) and admitted that the debate was resolved. Ron's biggest complaint with the Fed, is their monetary policy. The merits of his argument are very strong and are backed by Milton Friedman.
2/22/07 10:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38644
I think Paul's got a perfectly valid argument there. I have never made the argument that the Fed is the best way to do things (because I'm woefully unqualified to make that determination). I'm just responding directly to CPracer's last post, which has been an ongoing theme on this forum for some time.
2/22/07 10:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2194
by Forest Glen Durland With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Congress gave the power to create and control money to private bankers. Money is now created by private bankers who charge the people interest for it, resulting in a national debt in the trillions of dollars. Forest Glen Durland maintains that Congress had no right to give away the people's sovereign right to create debt free money. The existing national debt might be ruled unconstitutional. The Fed has usurped such power that it answers to no one, not even our elected President and Congress. For practical purposes, the Fed is privately owned and privately operated in secret for private gain. As to the private nature of the Federal Reserve System, we have a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco . We do have a case that has established that the individual banks, themselves, are not a part of the government. That is Lewis v. United States , U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 19, 1982. In this decision, we find several 'tests' of what constitutes a federal agency. Quoting from that decision: 'a critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity.' 'Federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress' 'Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by Workers' 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 discounts on lodging and services.' In addition to the above court ruling, several other facts indicate private ownership: 1. Ninth Circuit Court ruling. 2. Also see a 1979 case in which Senator Riegle sued the Fed. That case stated: "The Reserve Banks are private corporations whose stock is owned by the member commercial banks within their districts." 3. The United States Government owns no stock in the Federal Reserve System. All stock is owned by private banks. 4. The Fed banks are not listed in the phone book under "government". [They are however listed in the White pages under F, right near FedEx.] 5. Most Fed employees are not paid with government checks. 6. The Fed does not have franking privileges (free postage). 7. A government agency would create money for the government free of charge. However, the Fed creates money out of nothing and loans it the United States Government for interest that has now accumulated to trillions of dollars of debt. The American taxpayers get the bill. 8. The Fed banks have no debt. 9. The Fed pays property taxes. 10. The Federal Reserve System is neither federal nor reserve, but is basically a federally chartered, private banking consortium. 11. There has never been an independent audit of the Fed. 12. See the ABCs of Money.
2/22/07 10:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38646
With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Congress gave the power to create and control money to private bankers... *Stops reading* No it didn't.
2/22/07 10:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2195
Yes it did.
2/22/07 10:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Mozilla
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/14/2002
Posts: 5758
I would love to vote for ron paul if I knew he had a legitimate chance to win.
2/22/07 10:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Mozilla
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/14/2002
Posts: 5759
I would love to vote for ron paul if I knew he had a legitimate chance to win.
2/22/07 11:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38647
Yes it did. No, it didn't. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, ewhich is not a conglomeration of private bankers...in any way. The case law listed in that article does not, in any way, address the Board of Directors.
2/22/07 11:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
theshooter
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2031
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! Read G. Edward Griffin's excellent book "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" which is avaible at www.realityzone.com.
2/22/07 12:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2196
yes is Shooter. Steve you still live in a fantasy world and believe that people like Ben Bernacke are not hand picked by the private bankers and put in that position to do what the private banks tell them to.
2/22/07 1:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38655
The Chairman is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If you are asserting that bankers have influence over the Senate and the President, I don't disagree, but I question how you think putting those individuals in direct control of monetary policy would improve matters. I would also point out that, in order to be a member of the Board of Governors, you need to swear under oathh that you are not "... an officer or director of any bank, banking institution, trust company, or Federal Reserve bank or hold stock in any bank, banking institution, or trust company..." Even if your assertion were true, and not rendered irrelevant by simple logic, it does not have any bearing on whether Congress could, Constitutionally, create the Fed.
2/22/07 1:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
theshooter
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2032
"The Chairman is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If you are asserting that bankers have influence over the Senate and the President, I don't disagree," Well duh! OF COURSE they have a big influence! They only pick people who are approved by the cabal. "but I question how you think putting those individuals in direct control of monetary policy would improve matters." It wouldn't improve matters. The fiat currency systemt needs to be abolished.
2/22/07 1:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07 01:33 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38659
So we've established that the Fed isn't the problem, right? We eliminate fiat currency, return to the gold standard.... ...And then we run back to Triffin's dillemma. There isn't a perfect system.
2/27/07 12:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2201
So Steve, you would rather have a system that benifits the bankers and allows them to control our country?
2/27/07 12:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38769
That's a nonsensical statement. The current system does not do either of those things.
2/27/07 3:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-07 03:47 PM
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2210
Actually Steve that statement by you proves that people such as yourself can have book smarts and no common sense. Wake up.
2/27/07 3:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Steve72
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38790
No, it proves that I am looking at this logically. If you want to say that the bankers have some insidious influence on monetary policy, fine. Maybe you're right. However, that influence is not a result of the current system. The Federal Reserve system does not give bankers any control over monetary policy. The corruption (if it exists) is unrelated to the structure.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.