Which Vision of America Will Win Out?

The internet conspiracy view of the world. Where Americans never landed on the Moon, Bush was behind 9/11, Obama was born in Kenya, and the Fed is a unsupervised private banking conglomerate that controls the world and started the world wars

 

In the context of the explanation it refers to the fact that the US Govt can close and take over the Fed which it created. It doesn't mean that because I have $10 I have a lien and I can walk into the fed and grab a computer monitor like you could if you have a lien.

The article also says "Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy."

If I have an IOU that says I am owed x dollars by y person, I have evidence of debt.

Who owes me what for the dollar I have in my pocket?

I agree. That why dollars aren't debt.

 

Right. Exactly. I never said you had a lien on anything - the Fed does. And the US has the authority to assume the obligations of the Fed.

Yes, exactly. But they represent a 1st lien on the assets of Federal Reserve Banks, and the collateral held by them.

The borrower. But you being the maker, can sell/transfer your note to another person. The borrower still owes.

But they are evidence of debt. Only the debt isn't specified. So they are empty promises backed only by the goods and services in the economy.

That's the fraud.

 

What does the Fed have a lien on, according to you?

It not a legal lien, they are making an analogy.

What borrower? Who is the borrower and what does he she or it owe me.

Dollars are not evidence of any debt. What debt owed by whom to whom for what is "evidenced" by the $20 bill I have in my pocket? Why can it be a debt if the debt isn't specified? What "promise" are you talking about?

You take words out of context and them make these fallacious abstract assertions, but cannot explain them.

That is the delusion.

 

Who says there's a widespread attempt to even implement Social Democracy here?

 

According to the Treasury, the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the collateral held by them.

I think this is the 3rd or 4th time, but you refuse to understand.

Try not paying income taxes, and you'll find out how legal the lien really is.

In your IOU example, you lent someone money. That is the borrower.

It's a note. This is really simple.

I'm not taking anything out of context. You simply cannot understand what's being said. I'm being as clear and concise as I can, but you're not getting it.

The delusion is on your part, because you don't understand that a note is evidence of debt. A dollar bill (it's a bill, get it?) is a note made by the Federal Reserve. Someone owes the Fed something that isn't specified.

That makes it fraudulent on its face. I'm also making the case for it being fraudulent, since the Fed purports to have a lien on goods and services bought with it.

What the end result is, the US is able to borrow in today's dollar, then repay in tomorrow's inflated dollars. That's more fraud. It simply robs every holder of FRN's of the purchasing power it had before.

 

Sadly Social Democracy has ALREADY won out. And try as we might to change things, the Republicans don't seem to really have gotten the message from last November. All one need do is watch that farce going on over the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling will get raised, and no real cuts will have been made, and the problem will once again get kicked down the road so that we will again have to deal with it. Boehner and crew are no different than the Democrats they CLAIM to oppose. They too need to go.

 

Hear hear! They're only perpetuating the fraud, and people are buying into it out of fear.

 

LIMITED GOVERNMENT is the only plausible future if we are to remain free and solvent. Of course we have social needs, that does not mean you go broke HELPING OTHERS, IF YOU DO WHO HELPS WHEN THE CHARITABLE GO BROKE?

This country did not make it that way, and it wont improve going that way. Remember what made us great!!
It's we The People,,NOT WE THE GOVERNMENT!

 

I agree with you, but Uncle Sam is insolvent. He owes much more than he can ever repay. Which is a problem, because we'll never be free on April 15th until he figures out how to repay the debt.

 

Nonsense. What truly makes America different was our system of Government. The rest of what you identify as positive influences I'll address as you offer them.

You speak as though America didn't become great until after WWII. WWII was won by the Allies because America was already great. We were - already then - the "Sleeping Giant".

America's natural resources are no more special than any other land mass. Africa, in fact, is blessed with - perhaps - more natural resources than anywhere else on Earth, and no one on that continent can get their sh!t together and form a 1st world country.

Don't tell me systems of Government aren't a tantamount reason for success, and sustained success. America has been so successful, in fact, that it's taken over 100 years for something as dysfunctional and destined to fail as Socialism to actually begin to seriously damage it.

You act as though this was close. The USSR was "competing with us" solely militarily. Their people were oppressed, downtrodden and poor. The USSR sapped out every bit of individual resource from the Soviet citizen to put themselves in a position to point as large a gun at us as we were pointing at them.

And then Reagan put us in a different gear; a gear that the USSR didn't have. And they crumbled. If they were truly comparable, Reagan could never have spent them into collapse, and won the Cold War.

Where do you think the corruption and cronyism emanate? The Government has only been put in a position to be this large and influential through enaction of the Social Democratic platform, turning it into a massive - and corrupt - Nanny State.

This Government could not be harnessed by any force deleterious to our fiscal and moral health if it were not so big.

This sounds nice, but the reason that we've done so is through lessons learned throughout our history. We attempted to avoid embroiling ourselves in world conflicts, but ended up forced to participate in WWI. We really didn't want to participate in world happenings after WWI, and ignored Hitler's military buildup and coalition building until it bit us at Pearl Harbor.

The reason that we involve ourselves is that we decided that it was better to stomp out small brush fires before they became forest fires, and to keep those powers which create global instability off-balance themselves.

We are certainly not perfect in administering such goals, but I believe that it is the moment that we stop doing so that those same powers coalesce into a severe enough threat to trigger WWIII - something which will be brought about mostly due to our lack of involvement, rather than our involvement.

I even have a prediction as to who will be the primary players: Iran, Russia and China, all allied - against the West, and Israel.

I believe this takes place because we do not remain firmly footed in Iraq, which is tremendously militarily important from a geo-strategic perspective.

I don't know about "even things out", but there is certainly tremendous influence we wield to bring about that global evolution. We are in the process of Westernizing the world, there is no question. With such "outsourcing" comes advancement. Advancement everywhere.

This notion baffles me, but I see it expressed by leftists regularly. It's as though you think that "prosperity" is a pie, and - as others take pieces - the rest don't get as large a piece.

It isn't a pie at all; it's a bakery. Prosperity is the result of what the baker creates. If the baker has the right ingredients (natural resources), and the right recipe (proper system of Government which best leaves human innovation unrestrained and able to produce), that bakery can kick out as many fabulous confections as it wants.

There is no limited pie. As the rest of the world gets more prosperous, the US (the original and quintessential baker) keeps leading the way by example, and moving forward in prosperity. Who is to say that our quality of life at the present - presently the best in the world - cannot be looked upon by our future generations as as primitive in relative terms as we look upon the quality of life our grandparents led in comparison to ourselves now?

Certainly you don't want to be party to such failed and limiting loser thoughts as those which think that we can no longer do those things, do you?

 

This statement is stupid, chilling and dangerous. See my response above, as that statement is completely UNtrue.

 

Wait, your claim is the Fed has a lien on its own assets? Or the US Govt does? You keep going back and forth.

Why would the Fed need a lien on its own assets?

Because what you assert makes no rational sense.

Millions don't. But what does my paying income taxes have to do with the Govt having a "lien" on Fed assets.

That is right! With an IOU we have a debt because we have a borrower, a lender, and a specific obligation to repay an identified amount.

So for the third time, who is the borrower, who is the lender and what is the debt to be repaid?

The fact you cannot answer these simple question proves that a dollar is not debt.

Tarfu, if it is really simple, why can't you answer my simple questions?

What debt owed by whom to whom for what is "evidenced" by the $20 bill I have in my pocket? What "promise" are you talking about?

You say it is simple but you can't answer simple questions. Why? Because you are simply wrong.

I don't understand it because what you say makes no sense, proved by the fact you cannot answer my simple questions.

Debt from whom owed by whom for what?

Your confusing the terminology. A "note" doesn't necessarily mean debt. I can write a note and it is not necessarily debt.

The fact that you cannot answer simple questions about your assertions does not make it fraud on its face. I makes it a case that you don't understand what you are talking about, proved by the fact that you cannot answer simple questions.

That is not the end result, but the US Govt can borrow money like anyone else can, and like everyone else who borrows money, has to pay interest on what it borrows. That is no more fraud than me using my credit card to buy a pair of shoes.

 

We can repay it. We repaid a portion of it in 2000.

Uncle Sam just needs to raise taxes and cut spending until its revenues exceed outlays.

We'll never be free on April 15th regardless.

 

Um...9 trillion spent on "the War on Poverty", for one thing.



How can you exist without recognizing such attempts are Social Democratization?

And what would be Social Democratization, if not that?

 

I"d like to learn more about that. Any help you have would be appreciated.

 

Please. One would have to be blind to not see the correlation between globalization and the deteriorating American middle class, the stagnant wages for those lucky enough to have a job, the wealth gap larger than that of the roaring 20's, etc. Are you seriously one of those people who are going to argue "we are a service economy now"? EVERYONE knows that is a joke. The service sector doesn't pay employees enough to pay for said services ergo a strictly service economy cannot sustain itself. The whole "it doesn't hurt America" argument stems from some fantasy time line where eventually every country will be where America was 20 years ago, and then the world will be full of markets and workers who demand more. How long will that take exactly? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? I find it funny the same people who can argue individuals have a right to reap the rewards of their labor can somehow look you in the eye and argue a nation does not. No individual deserves to be robbed and punished for their success, nor does any nation.

NATIONALIST CAPITALIST.

It's the American dream, or a world of serfs and pharaohs.

For every globalist you hang America, 1 million American children futures will be saved.

 

Do you mean evidence that a portion of the debt was repaid or the mechanics of how surplus tax receipts resulted in that repayment?

 

Kissinger and Greenspan "consult" the presidents on "economic matters". whose advice they take 100% of the time. Those of us with brains call that one working for the other. Word it anyway you like.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison. The FED banking system collects billions of dollars in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest.

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

Rothschild Bank of London, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank.

First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York Mary W. Harnman

National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard

Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff

Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker Percy Pyne Mrs. G.F. St. George J.W. Sterling Katherine St. George H.P. Davidson J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life) Edith Brevour T. Baker"

 

Too embarrassed to list the source?

Don't worry, I've seen most the nut job videos and internet sites over the years. Let me guess at this one ... Creature from Jeckyll Island?

Here is the actual legal structure of the ownership of the Fed, set forth in US law. You can read it yourself.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_VI.html

§ 282. Subscription to capital stock by national banking association

Every national banking association within each Federal reserve district shall be required to subscribe to the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank for that district in a sum equal to six per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of such bank, one-sixth of the subscription to be payable on call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, one-sixth within three months and one-sixth within six months thereafter, and the remainder of the subscription, or any part thereof, shall be subject to call when deemed necessary by the Board, said payments to be in gold or gold certificates.


§ 283. Public subscription to capital stock

No individual, copartnership, or corporation other than a member bank of its district shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in any Federal reserve bank. Such stock shall be known as public stock and may be transferred on the books of the Federal reserve bank by the chairman of the board of directors of such bank

§ 285. Nonvoting stock

Stock not held by member banks shall not be entitled to voting power.


§ 289. Dividends and surplus funds of reserve banks; transfer for fiscal year 2000


(a) Dividends and surplus funds of reserve banks
(1) Stockholder dividends
(A) In general
After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.
(B) Dividend cumulative
The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(2) Deposit of net earnings in surplus fund
That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which remains after dividend claims under paragraph (1)(A) have been fully met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.
(b)  1 Transfer for fiscal year 2000
(1) In general
The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of $3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
(2) Allocated by Fed
Of the total amount required to be paid by the Federal reserve banks under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2000, the Board shall determine the amount each such bank shall pay in such fiscal year.
(3) Replenishment of surplus fund prohibited
During fiscal year 2000, no Federal reserve bank may replenish such bank’s surplus fund by the amount of any transfer by such bank under paragraph (1).

§ 287. Value of shares of stock; increase and decrease of stock; member banks as shareholders; surrender of shares

The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.


If you read these statutes, you will find that contrary to your internet video/website's claims and contrary to what happens in PRIVATE banks, that all national banks (and state banks that apply and meet the criteria" by law are required to buy Fed Reserve stock at par based upon the bank's capital, no one else can buy voting stock, and the stock cannot be transferred, sold, or hypothicated. The stock does not entitled the bank to vote on FR board members (it does given them non-controlling voting power for officials at regional banks), and does not entitle them to share in the Fed's excess revenues or "profits" (which are remitted to the US Treasury). The member banks shares are permitted a fixed 6% return and that's it.

If there is any other PRIVATE bank in the world that works like that, you'd have to prove it to me.

 

LMAO. You just admitted the FED is owned by private entities who in turn are owned by private interests ergo the FED is a private entity. I suppose after all the BS we are just supposed to take the governments word on the actual take home for those who own it? My god, you have got to be the worst shill in the history of the internet. Seriously, rolling right now.

 

If you consider the side that merely wins with an austerity plan that includes spending cuts and tax revenues, then I'd say the Social Democrats. However, I would consider these people to be the more conventional democrats that will convince all members of Congress that an austerity plan similar to those in European nations (not Greece) is the right way to solve the immediate crisis. The debate on who will win in the long-run is still a mystery.

 

That our authoritarian government exists primarily to further the interests of a landed and moneyed class of aristocrats and special interests by stealing the wealth of the working classes through confiscatory taxation and inflation.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. The government and the ostensibly private banks are quite open about their incestuous relationship.

 

Republicans are good at speaking for other people. I don't know how many times I've heard a winger say "the American people don't want paved roads" or "the American people don't want clean drinking water."

 

Did you read the statutes? Do you know what statutes are?

Then I'll get to the next point.