Written By Thomas Perez. November 7, 2012 at 7:15am. Copyright 2012.
A. The Futility:
Not to long ago I posted a photo of Thomas Jefferson’s quote on the Federal Reserve on a social media forum in which he said; “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
I also commented on that post by citing, quote:
“This is why I’m still proud to say, I don’t have a bank account. Don’t want it. Don’t need it. But you may ask, “what about credit?” My answer – don’t want it, don’t need it. If you cant afford something, just save and wait. Wait and save. Just think about it, by the time you know it, you got what you wanted; without the never ending high interests rates.”
I also went on to say, quote: “By the way, Jefferson was not the only one to say that. I just can’t imagine lending my hard earned money to private bankers and individuals who in turn distribute such assets to fulfill their own personal agenda’s. I mean just think about it. Think! You wouldn’t lend your money to every Tom, Dick, or Harry would you? But you do so every day by giving it to the bankers. On the streets, when you lend money to someone, you expect to get the principle back, and if your the type of person, you might charge them interest. And if that individual does not pay back, he may receive a good ass kicking from you. But just think about it, you get your ass kicked everyday by the bankers. If I want something, I wait for it by earning it through work and patience. Because after all, patience is a virtue.”
I’ am also proud to say that I didn’t vote in 2012. You may ask, “why?” And you may also ask, “Am I a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Liberal?” My answer to that question would be “NO.” I’ am a swing state, so to speak. I vote (and that’s when I did) for the person who’s political agendas are in correlation with the nationalistic ideas of the people and what this country was meant to be. But alas, the spiral and domino effect has taken its toll, and there seems to be no way out, unless a new REVOLUTION takes place. Not the rhetoric of “moving forward” or the same subtle “changes” that never satisfy the yearning for equality (be that in the pocket with the option to grow, or be that culturally) but an eradication of what is called the “Monetary System.” President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Presidents are selected, not elected.”
Here is what one President said on the topic of the banking system and revolution;
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford
Perhaps I should of voted, just for the sake of the other issues like Abortion and Foreign Policy. But then again; they are often funded by the same international monopoly of cartels, as seen in The Health Care System – as in the average cost of an abortion and its various pieces of dead tissue – which can roughly run anywhere within the “price range of $150 – $575,” – ‘The Division of Consultative & Diagnostic Pathology.’ Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Nothing would ever change that, unless we take back what is rightfully ours.
The last two promising potential Presidential candidates were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. The two (though I believe Ron Paul more so) wanted to end the “Federal Reserve.” but when they didn’t win the primary in 08 and 2012, I thought to myself; “People don’t really want change, or perhaps they don’t know the true meaning of the word.” Why should I vote for two polar opposites on the outside when they both support the same banking domino effect that got us into this economic mess to begin with on the inside? Neither candidate, who won the primaries, wanted to address this issue. Why? Is addressing this issue, as Ron Paul did, so radical? Is it too revolutionary? I believe it is. I believe those that are in office don’t want to see a good thing, for them that is, eradicated.
In a speech before Congress in 2002, entitled ‘Abolish the Fed,’ Ron Paul said:
“Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority over monetary policy. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a Central Bank. I urge my colleagues to put an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living and enriches well-connected elites.”
These are fighting words! Then in April 2007, Ron Paul came out slugging again in his Congressional speech entitled The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money:
“The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism or illegal immigration. The greatest threat is the shameless deficit spending of our government and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. The Press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, the political structure becomes unstable. We then have good reason to be concerned about the future of our nation.” http://ronpaulforum.info/index.php?topic=241.0
At this moment I’ am reminded of a status a friend quoted this evening, “Our political system is a joke as is our justice system…Anyone who votes is just rolling the dice is all. Both candidates and party’s have their own agenda’s and it does NOT include bettering our nation; only their pockets”…I agree. The pockets of the politicians get filled, while many still go to bed hungry and homeless.
Case and point, I was coming home not to long ago by way of mass transit and I saw a bill board posted by the ‘National Coalition For The Homeless’ The massive poster read, “16,000 (which was crossed out) to indicate that the numbers went up from 16,000 to “20,000 NYC kids are homeless each night.“ This is horrific!
Moreover, according to statistics, the unemployment rate at present is “7.9% from 8.2% in July.” Now you may think, “Hey that’s good news, its going down.” However, that observation simply isn’t the case. “In the past two years, unemployment was up by 9.8% in Jan 2011, then went down in July by 9.1% in 2011.” As you can see, this is certainly not much of a change. Furthermore, according to the ‘Bureau of Labor Statistics,’ “The unemployment rate in the United States has increased to 7.9 percent in October of 2012.” Historically, from 1948 until 2012, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8 percent, reaching an all time high of 10.8 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.5 percent in May of 1953. The unemployment rate can be defined as the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labor force.
Perhaps, if we didn’t have the monetary system that we have today our unemployment rate would be much, much, lower; and in all likelihood would not exceed 4.5%. The U.S. Constitution clearly states in ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, “CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF. IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP.” So why the issue and creation of paper money by an OUTSIDE source called “The Federal Reserve?” Before we answer that, let us take a brief look into the history and creation on the Federal Reserve.
Notation – 2018 Update: Since the writing of this article in 2016, I would like to inform the readers that as of November, 2016, I did vote. I voted for Donald Trump. The following video clip entails one of the main reasons why I voted for him – he said that he was going to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to the Gold Standard. The following video tells us this. Moreover, I actually remember him saying that during his campaign run…
Born out of the 1907 (before the 1935 ruling I might add) depression, and following 80 years without a Fed-like institution, the law was created to; implement currency reform, designed to stop financial panics, and to provide an emergency reserve of money for the economy. The Fed’s mandate grew to include setting certain interest rates, controlling inflation, regulating banks, and “reaching full employment.” So what are the chances of a repeal? Even with the vocal criticism of Fed bashers like Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), “not much,” says professor John Allan James from the Lubin School of Business at Pace University, who is critical of some Fed policies.
The advantages of paper currency were numerous: it reduced transport of gold and silver, and thus lowered the risks; it made loaning gold or silver at interest easier, since the specie (gold or silver – money in the form of coins rather than notes) never left the possession of the lender until someone else redeemed the note; and it allowed for a division of currency into credit and specie backed forms. It enabled the sale of stock in joint stock companies, and the redemption of those shares in paper.
However, these advantages held within them disadvantages. First, since a note has no intrinsic value, there was nothing to stop issuing authorities from printing more of it than they had specie to back it with. Second, because it increased the money supply, it increased inflationary pressures, a fact observed by David Hume in the 18th century – “The result is that paper money would often lead to an inflationary bubble, which could collapse if people began demanding hard money, causing the demand for paper notes to fall to zero.” The printing of paper money was also associated with wars, and financing of wars, and therefore regarded as part of maintaining a standing army. For these reasons, paper currency was held in suspicion and hostility in Europe and America. It was also addictive, since the speculative profits of trade and capital creation were quite large. Major nations established mints to print money and mint coins, and branches of their treasury to collect taxes and hold gold and silver stock. Here is a picture illustrating the overview of its overseers…
You will note that the ‘Board of Governor’s, rather than the people, run the banks and markets – a sort of socialistic distribution for all – namely as in all for the rich. It is their own utopian society based upon monetary self gain. The Fed currently has legal independence from the White House and Congress – but must make frequent Congressional appearances. But in the mean time this cycle continues to create debt, as the next picture illustrates…
But what if it was abolished? What then? How would the U.S. economy then function? Something has to take its place, right? Well, we have but two choices.
B. Two Choices:
1. We can return to the gold standard. But history tells us that both gold and silver has been “on” and “off” And as a result gold and silver private ownership of the metal was banned by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. Moreover, the tie to gold was completely broken in 1971 by President Richard Nixon. What’s left is called a system of ‘fiat money‘ in which currencies are backed by the ‘good faith‘ of their government rather than a metal like gold. The belief is that the management of money is easier with a “fiat currency.” And there may not be enough gold to go around to back up the dollar – it could be hostage to the whims of gold traders.
In most cases, a central bank has monopoly control over emission of coins and banknotes (fiat money) for its own area of circulation (a country or group of countries); it regulates the production of currency by banks (credit) through monetary policy. No country anywhere in the world today has an enforceable gold standard or silver standard currency system.
But this is precisely why we have a U.S. national deficit of over 19 Trillion dollars of which many feared would happen. As long as the Federal Reserve keeps printing this fiat paper means of money, the more likely it is that we will never, ever, truly recover from this domino effect. The United States Government will never be able to pay this economic cartel of international bankers. Did anybody say “change?”
2. Well, there’s always the US Treasury. The treasury would be responsible for the amount of money being injected into the economy. Everyone knows that whoever the Secretary of Treasury is, they are always appointed by the President, but must be approved by the Senate (a policy that I don’t particularly care for) since I would prefer the House of Representatives to do the appointing. Though a branch of Congress, it is the House that represents the people; “We The People”
As stated above, “the Fed currently has legal independence from the White House and Congress – but must make frequent Congressional appearances” – but if the decisions were made by the Treasury, that economic autonomy could easily disappear. This legal independence is due to the fact that the Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency. It is a creditor to the United States and abroad. And that is why they have obtained the BUREAUCRATIC right to obtain, collect taxes, and even garnish your paycheck every year – once every 52 weeks, if you end up owing them in April. If these Congressional appearances are made; how can a system responsible for the printing of our currency easily just disappear as we are led to believe?
Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AZ) once said “Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.”
Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863 said, “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.”– Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
C. Looking Back in Time on How Humanity Used Money:
1. In the Beginning: There was Barter, then in…
2. 9000-6000BC: Cattle
3. 1200BC: Cowrie Shells
4. 1000BC: First Metal Money and Coins
5. 500BC: Modern Coinage
6. 118BC: Leather Money
7. 800-900AD: The Nose
8. 806AD: Paper Currency
9. 1500AD: Potlach
10. 1535AD: Wampum
11. 1816AD: The Gold Standard: Gold was officially made the standard of value in England in 1816. At this time, guidelines were made to allow for a non-inflationary production of standard banknotes which represented a certain amount of gold. Banknotes had been used in England and Europe for several hundred years before this time, but their worth had never been tied directly to gold. In the United States, the Gold Standard Act was officially enacted in 1900, which helped lead to the establishment of a central bank.
12. 1933AD: End of the Gold Standard: The massive Depression of the 1930s, felt worldwide, marked the beginning of the end of the gold standard. In the United States, the gold standard was revised and the price of gold was devalued. This was the first step in ending the relationship altogether. The British and international gold standards soon ended as well, and the complexities of international monetary regulation began.
13. The Present: Federal Reserve Paper money. With the advent of the Federal Reserve a new currency was issued – Federal Reserve notes, which at the time were based on the gold standard. The Federal Reserve was to unite and supervise the entire banking system, control the expansion or contraction of currency, and regulate the flow of money to the commercial banks through the establishment of 12 Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve is controlled by private banking interest and by Presidential appointment – but it is still a private organization and not a government entity. In 1913, President Wilson’s creation of the Federal Reserve System established a three-tier monetary system in the United States – the holders of money (public, government, business and institutions; the commercial banks that borrow from the public and issue loans; and the central bank or Federal Reserve that has a monopoly on the issuing of money. The Federal Reserve is technically owned by the commercial banks.
14. The Future: Electronic Money: In our digital age, economic transactions regularly take place electronically, without the exchange of any physical currency. Digital cash in the form of bits and bytes will most likely continue to be the currency of the future.
D. How Can This Trend Be Broken?
In 1797, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects of the Constitution or Confederation; not from any want of honor or virtue, as much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” In simple terms, the United States Government borrows money from the Federal Reserve Bank with interest. Here is how it works: The Government wants $1 billion. The Federal Reserve prints $1 billion – based upon no hard asset – and lends it to the Government at a high interest rate. The bank did not have the original money, it created it and made a book-keeping entry – like you writing yourself a check without funds, and cashing it. The Federal Reserve controls the flow of money, making it tight and creating unemployment or printing more than actually exists and creates inflation. It is, in essence, a paper corporation, which controls the entire economic well-being of the nation.
In 1963, President Kennedy wanted to end the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Reserve System and ordered the U.S. government to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy’s order and the Federal Resene won another round.
Representative Charles A. Lindberg, Sr., the father of the famous aviator, was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. He opposed the Federal Reserve Act and gave a speech on January 20, 1915. “The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money, and in the interest of the stockholders and those allied with them.” Representative Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the Housing Banking and Currency Committee, stated on June 10,1932, “Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies that prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
Moreover, in his book “End the Fed” Ron Paul cites “ Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country’s economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don’t realize is that the Fed – created by the Morgan’s and Rockefeller’s at a private club off the coast of Georgia – is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul’s urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America’s economic policy for future generations.”
This monopoly of ownership can be broken. President Kennedy recognized this before he was slain – the original deal in 1913 creating the Federal Reserve Bank had a simple back-out clause. The investors loaned the United States Government $1 billion. And the back-out clause allows the United States to buy out the system for that $1 billion. If the Federal Reserve Bank were demolished and the Congress of the United States took control of the currency, as required in the Constitution, the National Debt would virtually end overnight, and the need for more taxes and even the income tax, itself. Thomas Jefferson was concise in his early warning to the American nation, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
The monetary policy of the United States is the domain of the Federal Reserve Bank and not the government. This process is in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution that reposes the responsibility of the monetary system with the Congress of the United States.
On April 27, 1936, hearings were held by the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The preamble of the bill – HR 9216 of the Seventy-fourth Congress, states, “The committee had under consideration the bill (HR 92163 to restore to Congress its constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof; to provide monetary income to the people of the United States at a fixed and equitable purchasing power of the dollar, ample at all times to enable the people to buy wanted goods and services at full capacity of the industries and commercial facilities of the United States; to abolish the practice of creating bank deposits by private groups upon fractional reserves, and for other purposes.”
By this bill, Congress resumes its constitutional duty of issuing money and regulating its value, a duty and a right which it has long been abdicated to the private banking system, read the preamble of the bill. The bill would have eliminated the private manufacture of money – a direct contravention of the mandate of the Constitution, which places the right to coin money in the hands of Congress.
The bill would have allowed the nation to pay off its national debt and stay out of debt. In one year’s time, with this bill, the national debt could have been paid, and without any tax increases, plus it would have allowed for full employment. “Because of the unsound practice of relying on the private manufacturing of monetary credits by private groups, you are preparing to lay heavier taxes on the shrunken income of the people, without hope of balancing the Budget perhaps for years to come,” was the testimony of Allen B. Brown, chairman of the New Economic Group.
Remember, this testimony is in 1936. “In order to meet the Budget deficits, this administration and the preceding one committed themselves to a program of borrowing, so that now the national debt has doubled with every prospect of further increase. More than half of this great sum of added debt represents merely book figure which the banks have lent the Government. To pay for their service of writing figures on their books and canceling the Government checks in their clearing system, the Government has engaged to tax the American people. They must pay back the billions of book figures with sweat and labor, with goods and services to which they are now denied access of purchasing power for their families, and they must pay enormous debt charges.” Brown said that the bill before Congress would “put a stop to this process of privately manufacturing monetary credit for the use of business out of added government debt.”
The bill would have ended immediately the private monetary credit inflation. The Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing, simply printing it, lending it and printing more. You could have guessed that this bill never became law in 1936 – the banking interest was too powerful.
E. True Independence: The Real Solution
It is my belief that whatever replaces the Fed must be independent. But more so than independence, our distributions of money should be decided by the people and not by an elite core of private bankers. After all, it is the people who are responsible for the productivity and fair trade that happens on a day to day basis. Without the hand of the people, nothing grows, there is no productivity, and thus no economic stability or growth.This aristocracy of feeding the rich and giving the scraps (leftovers) from the profits gained every April the 15th to Lazarus must end. I say KEEP your refund, I want the whole!
Now some will say “having some sort of central bank may have been better than none. Out of 100 years of Fed control, the country has had 22 recessional years, including one depression. The 100 years before the Fed – saw 44 recessions and six depressions. What’s left is this: until someone thinks of a better idea than the gold standard or handing the economic keys to the Treasury Department, or just leaving a void, the Fed will probably have to stick around – flaws and all.”
I say, “NO.” The answer is in the pudding. The keys to the Treasury Dept should be given to the people. Again, after all, it is the people of this great democracy who generate the economic system and pay their equal fair share of taxes; why not let us keep the keys to our apartments? Then perhaps, allegorically speaking, we would not have to settle for an apartment, but actually be able to achieve our white picket fence dream.
The title of the “Secretary of Treasury” should be changed to “Secretaries of Treasuries” – namely voted by “We The People” and not a President. And such votes should be delegated to the “House of Representatives” rather than the Senate. The U.S. Constitution vests the House with the sole power of introducing bills for raising revenue, making it one of the most influential components of the U.S. government, not the Federal Reserve, which often accomplishes the opposite of true revenue
This concept can create a fair and monitored supervision of monies spent and loaned by each governing state, by way of majority vote, as approved or disapproved by each electoral seat. Moreover, the abolition of the Federal Reserve can insure the reconsideration of Bill HR 92163, which can then be in-trusted can be
However, Congress will not enact any carefully designed reform. If it enacts anything, it will be some last-minute scheme proposed by a joint Congressional committee that is advised by the Secretary of the Treasury (Goldman Sachs) and the Chairman of the FED’s Board of Governors in the middle of a financial catastrophe. In other words, it will be a replay of October 2008
I will continue to vote in the primaries, but until a Presidential candidate that fits the bill of eradicating the Federal Reserve wins the primary, I will continue to withhold my Presidential vote, until someone comes with the agenda to demolish the Federal Reserve as discussed in this article. I’m not going to waste my time voting upon the two evils, even if one or the other has a particular belief I may, or may not, agree with. See Notation Above.
Voting is NOT an obligation (the act of binding oneself by social, legal, or moral ties, or binding contract) it is a RIGHT! And like my friend, a right that I freely chose not to exercise at this time! But I’d probably exercise it in the future, if somebody is radical enough for true change, even something close to what we just learned here. It would be a step in the right direction. I certainly hope that I won’t have to be uploading this potential picture in any upcoming articles on failed promises…
For more quotes on the Federal Reserve please visit, http://www.barefootsworld.net/banking-fed-quotes.html