ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE, CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN, WALL STREET JOURNAL PETITION EVIL
The Money Trust wrote the Federal Reserve Act in total secrecy. The Act formed a banking cartel.
The Federal Reserve System (that is not federal and has no reserves) writes checks to the government out of nothing. The government owes interest on the created money. The government then spends the borrowed money, much of which ends up being deposited in commercial banks that are under the Federal Reserve.
Some members of Congress liked this system because they could deficit spend and then raise taxes to cover it. Their families and they were also getting funds from the bankers.
The commercial banks then lend ten times the deposit amount at interest. Ten percent is supposedly retained to cover withdrawals. The thinking is that runs on the bank are rare. There is also deposit insurance to cover any runs.
The Central Banking cartels had been defeated before, and the people didn't want a money trust. That's why they named it the Federal Reserve System rather than the Central or National Bank. The first attempt to pass it was name The "Aldrich Bill" and went down to defeat because Aldrich was the sponsor. He was well known as a friend of big banking, and the people and members of Congress didn't want the money trust controlling the national currency. So, they took the bill and rewrote it a bit and gave it new sponsors this time who were Democrats rather then big-business Republicans so that it would appear to be coming from the types who would be more opposed to consolidation of wealth. The bill became the "Glass-Owen Bill" after Carter Glass and Robert Owen. Aldrich then played a psychological trick on the common people by speaking against the bill. This was reverse psychology.
They added some rather populist provisions that after the bill passed, they amended away. They further increased the Federal Reserve Act. It has been modified over a hundred times, and of course, we have the banking trust, the banking cartel, seeking right now to again further enhance the power of the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed under the guise of providing a mechanism whereby via monetary policy (setting of interest rates), the Fed would prevent the booms and busts of the business cycle.
So great was popular resentment against bankers since the Panic of 1907 that no Congressman would dare to vote for a bill bearing the Wall Street taint, no matter who had contributed to his campaign expenses. The Jekyll Island plan was a central bank plan, and in this country there was a long tradition of struggle against inflicting a central bank on the American people. It had begun with Thomas Jefferson's fight against Alexander Hamilton's scheme for the First Bank of the United States, backed by James Rothschild. It had continued with President Andrew Jackson's successful war against Alexander Hamilton's scheme for the Second Bank of the United States, in which Nicholas Biddle was acting as the agent for James Rothschild of Paris. The result of that struggle was the creation of the Independent Sub-Treasury System, which supposedly had served to keep the funds of the United States out of the hands of the financiers. A study of the panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907 indicates that these panics were the result of the international bankers' operations in London. The public was demanding in 1908 that Congress enact legislation to prevent the recurrence of artificially induced money panics. Such monetary reform now seemed inevitable. It was to head off and control such reform that the National Monetary Commission had been set up with Nelson Aldrich at its head, since he was majority leader of the Senate.
...the real work...would be controlled by a Federal Advisory Council.... The Council would be chosen by the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, and would remain unknown to the public.
(Source: "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," by Eustace Mullins.)
So, who sits on that Federal Advisory Council?
Please note that Eustace Mullins and Ezra Pound may be anti-Jewish in the sense where such discrimination is against the whole set of people called Jews. They were and still are accused of it. Ezra Pound certainly seemed to border on it at the very least. Eustace Mullins certainly has written for anti-Jewish publications.
Mullins wrote the following of Jews:
Now, in the study of mankind, we find that there is one group or classification of persons who appear persistently in the records of the great civilizations. They are always disliked, yet they remain in the midst of the people who dislike them, and if they are driven out, they insist upon returning, no matter at what cost to themselves. We also find that they always manage to live at the expense of others.
If he meant that as pertaining to all Jews, then he's an ethnic bigot. Well, he did mean it about all Jews, as "BIOLOGICAL JEW" can have no other meaning. (See: "THE BIOLOGICAL JEW," by Eustace Mullins.)
Nevertheless, one ought simply never to discount facts just because they are rendered by people who have personal shortcomings. It is our duty to discern. Enemies definitely have vilified each other down through the ages. As I've written before, quite naturally, those who hate a group the most will dig out the most dirt. The issue is with sorting the real from the made up.
I've read many writings by Federal Reserve proponents that just fly in the face of well-documented facts to the contrary. I've seen plenty of bringing in side-issues that are actually irrelevant as to whether or not many of the bankers who colluded were of Jewish extraction.
The truth is that evil is certainly spread around through the Gentile world as well. The truth is also that many, many Jewish people are not to be lumped in with people with decidedly evil intentions. So, be immune to racism and ethnic bigotry and seek only truth.
Just to be clear here. I do not subscribe to holocaust denial. I do though say that it is counter-productive to outlaw people questioning things. I say that what ought to be done is more research to either refute or confirm theories and estimates on all sides. I hate racism and ethnic bigotry. I believe that God and Jesus take each soul as separate even though we are as humanity responsible and accountable. This is not irreconcilable.
In addition, consider the source on any side. Those who most vilify Ezra Pound are often those who won't also say that Avigdor Lieberman is fascistic.
Back to the facts, how well has the Federal Reserve done at preventing violent swings in the economy via which the superrich have benefited?
- Crash of 1921
- Crash of 1929 and Great Depression
- Recession of 1953
- Recession of 1957
- Recession of 1969
- Recession of 1975
- Recession of 1981
- Recession of 1987: Black Monday
- Recession of 1990
- Recession of 2001: The dotcom bubble and bust
- Crash of 2007-8: The housing bubble and bust
Interest on the National Debt at $400 billion a year and rising
The Federal Reserve was really for the sake of consolidation. It was for the purpose of reversing private capital formation where companies would self-finance there own expansion, meaning they'd save or issue stocks rather than borrowing from the banks. They were able to offer low interest rate since they weren't risking anything since they created the money via fractional reserves. They use the "too big to fail" excuse to get those who owe them to be bailed out by the Congress via tax dollars.
- Pen Central 1970
- Lockheed 1970
- Commonwealth of Detroit 1972
- New York City 1975
- Chrysler 1978
- First Pennsylvania Bank 1980
- Continental Illinois 1982
- Savings and Loans Associations 1989
- Third world countries funded via tax dollars going through the Federal Reserve into the Bretton Woods organizations, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. This is terrible for those countries that are literally raped by foreigners stealing the natural resources and enslaving the poor under economic scarcity artificially created by the IMF and World Bank
Wikipedia, bailouts continued:
- 1991 - Executive Life Insurance Company, by states assessing other insurers
- 1998 - Long-Term Capital Management, by banks and investment houses, not government (see LTCM page). [That was the hedge fund bailout that propped up the first derivatives bust.]
- 2008 - The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
- 2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
- 2008 - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. bailed out by Berkshire Hathaway [and by way of $13 billion coming from AIG being bailed out by the taxpayers]
- 2008 - Morgan Stanley bailed out by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
- 2008-2009 - American International Group, Inc. multiple times [AIG and Credit Default Swaps (CDS's)]
- 2008 - Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
- 2008 - Citigroup Inc.
- 2008 - General Motors Corporation and Chrysler LLC- though not technically a bailout, a bridge loan was given to the auto manufacturers by the U.S. government, this is referred to by most as a bailout
- 2009 - Bank of America to help it absorb losses that were much greater than expected incurred by its buyout [forced by Henry Paulson under threat of firing the whole board] of Merrill Lynch
Most of the above comes from "The Creature from Jekyll Island - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," by G. Edward Griffin. 1994, which is the audio embedded below. I recommend that you listen.
Let me say that I don't agree with the gold standard. It's not necessary. In fact, it's detrimental. That's not to say that I agree with banking or currencies. In fact, I don't. I do want the people to become widely aware of the scam that was perpetrated upon them by the European, New York, Wall Street bankers.
I also don't hold with the system of government of the United States. There will be a New World Order that will be displaced by righteousness. The idea that the system of the United States as conceived by the American Founding Fathers is good and free is wrong.
I won't go into it all here but suggest for new visitors and those who have not looked into it to check the Christian Commons Project and much of the rest of this site to become aware of the best alternative to the current mess. Thank you.
Now, remember how G. Edward Griffin correctly stated that the superrich bankers have purchased the means of propagandizing for their so-called economic system. Most of the signers below are products of that whole process. They are dupes and shills, witting or not.
Contrast the truth with the following utterly ridiculous, elitist, even utterly evil Petition:
"Petition for Fed Independence" Wall Street Journal. (a Rupert Murdoch newspaper) July 15, 2009.
By WSJ Staff
The following is a petition calling for a commitment to Fed independence:
Open Letter to Congress and the Executive Branch
Amidst the debate over systemic regulation, the independence of U.S. monetary policy is at risk. We urge Congress and the Executive Branch to reaffirm their support for and defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability. There are three specific risks that must be contained.
First, central bank independence has been shown to be essential for controlling inflation. Sooner or later, the Fed will have to scale back its current unprecedented monetary accommodation. When the Federal Reserve judges it time to begin tightening monetary conditions, it must be allowed to do so without interference. Second, lender of last resort decisions should not be politicized.
Finally, calls to alter the structure or personnel selection of the Federal Reserve System easily could backfire by raising inflation expectations and borrowing costs and dimming prospects for recovery. The democratic legitimacy of the Federal Reserve System is well established by its legal mandate and by the existing appointments process. Frequent communication with the public and testimony before Congress ensure Fed accountability.
If the Federal Reserve is given new responsibilities every effort must be made to avoid compromising its ability to manage monetary policy as it sees fit.
Ricardo Caballero MIT
Kenneth French Dartmouth College
Robert Hall Stanford
Anil Kashyap Chicago Booth
Pete Klenow Stanford
Frederic Mishkin Columbia
Thomas Sargent NYU
Michael Woodford Columbia
Andrew Abel Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Daron Acemoglu MIT
Michael Adler Columiba University
Yacine Ait-Sahalia Princeton University
Fernando Alvarez University of Chicago
Scott Anderson Wells Fargo & Co.
Cliff Asness Managing and Founding Principal, AQR Capital Management LLC
Paul Asquith Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David Backus NYU
Dean Baim Pepperdine University/UCLA
Ravi Bansal Duke University
David Bates University of Iowa
Andrew Bernard Dartmouth College
Richard Berner Morgan Stanley
George Borts Brown University
Scott Brown Raymond James & Associates
Markus K. Brunnermeier Princeton University
Ralph C. Bryant Brookings Institution
Michael Carey Calyon Securities (USA) Inc. Credit Agricole Group
Christopher Carroll Johns Hopkins University
Martin Cherkes Columbia University
Diego Comin Harvard University
Jernej Copic UCLA
Dora Costa UCLA
Steven Davis University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Angus Deaton Princeton University
Davide Debortoli University of California, San Diego
Eddie Dekel Northwestern University
Harold Demsetz UCLA
Scott Desposato University of California, San Diego
Douglas Diamond University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Peter Diamond MIT
Francis X. Diebold University of Pennsylvania
Avinash Dixit Princeton University
Matthias Doepke Northwestern University
Darrell Duffie Stanford
Pierre Collin Dufresne Columbia
Martin Eichenbaum Northwestern University
Andrea Eisfeldt Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management
Jeffrey Ely Northwestern University
Eduardo Engel Yale University
Eugene Fama University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Henry Farber Princeton University
Roger Farmer UCLA
Jon Faust Center for Financial Economics, Johns Hopkins U.
Michael Feroli J.P.Morgan
Wayne Ferson U.S.C.
Kristin Forbes MIT-Sloan School of Management
Mark Gertler New York Univiersity
Marc Giannoni Columbia University
Simon Gilchrist Boston University
Robert J. Gordon Northwestern University
Roger Gordon UCSD
David Greenlaw Morgan Stanley
Gene Grossman Princeton University
Steffen Habermalz Northwestern University
James Hamilton University of California, San Diego
Gary Hansen UCLA
Robert Hansen Tuck School, Dartmouth College
Gordon Hanson UC San Diego
Milton Harris University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Tarek Hassan University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Zhiguo He Chicago Booth
John Heaton University of Chicago
D. Lee Heavner Analysis Group, Inc.
Christian Hellwig UCLA
Gailen Hite Columbia Business School
Yael Hochberg Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Stuart Hoffman PNC Financial Services Group
Bengt Holmstrom MIT
Bo Honore Princeton University
Peter Hooper Deutsche Bank
Takeo Hoshi University of California, San Diego
Christopher House University of Michigan
Peter Howitt Brown University
Chang-tai Hsieh University of Chicago
Ellen Hughes-Cromwick Chief Economist, Ford Motor Company
John Huizinga University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Erik Hurst University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Ravi Jagannathan Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Dana Johnson Comerica Bank
Karen Johnson Federal Reserve Board of Governors (retired)
Charles I. Jones Stanford University, Graduate School of Business
Paul Joskow MIT
Matthew Kahn UCLA
Juno Kang The Bank of Korea
Steven Kaplan University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Bruce Kasman J.P. Morgan Chase
Peter Kenen Princeton Uniiversity
Ralph Koijen University of Chicago Booth School of Business
David Kotok Chariman, Central Banking Series, Global Interdependence Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Arvind Krishnamurthy Northwestern University
Rafael La Porta Dartmouth College
David Lake University of California, San Diego
Bruce Lehman UCSD
Nan Li Ohio State University
Hilarie Lieb Northwestern University
John Liew AQR Capital Management
Juhani Linnainmaa University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Andrew Lo MIT
Kevin Logan Dresdner Kleinwort
Guido Lorenzoni MIT
Hanno Lustig UCLA Anderson
Louis Maccini Johns Hopkins University
Burton Malkiel Princeton University
Eric Maskin The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University
Robert McDonald Kellogg School, Northwestern University
Daniel McFadden University of California, Berkeley
Doug McMillin Louisiana State University
Rajnish Mehra UC Santa Barbara
Robert Mellman J.P. Morgan
Robert Merton Harvard University
Laurence Meyer Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC
Atif Mian University of Chicago
Gregory Miller Suntrust Banks, Inc.
Robert Moffitt Johns Hopkins University
Stephen Morris Princeton University
Dale Mortensen Northwestern University
Giuseppe Moscarini Yale University
Tobias Moskowitz University of Chicago, Booth School of Business
Stefan Nagel Stanford
Maurice Obstfeld University of California, Berkeley
Lee Ohanian UCLA
Maureen O'Hara Cornell University
Stavros Panageas University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Dimitris Papanikolaou Northwestern University
Robert Parry President & CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Retired
Lubos Pastor University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Lasse H. Pedersen NYU
Monika Piazzesi Stanford
Keith Poole University of California, San Diego
Giorgio Primiceri Northwestern University
Valerie Ramey University of California, San Diego
Enrichetta Ravina Columbia University
Esteban Rossi-Hansberg Princeton University
Michael Rothschild Princeton University
Tano Santos Columbia Business School
Ulrike Schaede University of California, San Diego
Richard Schmalensee MIT
Martin Schneider Stanford
Kermit Schoenholtz NYU Stern School of Business
Jay Shanken Emory
Robert Shiller Yale University
Hyun Shin Princeton University
Stephen Shore Johns Hopkins University
Costis Skiadas Northwestern University
Matthew Slaughter Dartmouth College
James F. Smith Kenan-Flagler Business School, UNC-Chapel Hill
Chester Spatt Carnegie Mellon University
James H. Stock Harvard
Rene Stulz The Ohio State University
Amir Sufi University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joseph Swanson Northwestern University
Vefa Tarhan Loyola University Chicago
Edwin M. Truman Peterson Institute for International Economics
Harald Uhlig University of Chicago
Andrey Ukhov Northwestern University
Sergio Urzua Northwestern University
Chris Varvares Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC
Pietro Veronesi University of Chicago
Paul Wachtel New York University, Stern School of Business
Richard Walker Northwestern University
Mark Watson Princeton
Shang-jin Wei Columbia
David Weil Brown University
Pierre-Olivier Weill UCLA Economics
Burton Weisbrod Northwestern University
William Wheaton MIT
Michael Whinston Northwestern University
Mirko Wiederholt Northwestern University
Mark Witte Northwestern University
Tiemen Wouteren Johns Hopkins University
Jonathan Wright Johns Hopkins University
Wei Xiong Princeton University
Stanley Zin New York University
Since it is an open letter to the government, it is not copyright protected. The Wall Street Journal has entered it into the public domain for purely political reasons to attempt to sway the public debate. I respond with this post under free political speech to counter their falsehoods.
The so-called TARP and the stimulus bills of Bush and Obama have produced nothing for the common people. That's all by design.
The Federal Reserve System is a crime. The planned international replacement is also a scheme.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)