Is the American President just a Puppet of the Federal Reser

Post Reply New Topic

Would you care to elaborate on that theme?

As far as I can see, repeal of the authorizing legislation would be a relatively simple matter. Congress would order the liquidation of the federal reserve, and it would issue currency from the US treasury in order to redeem the outstanding T-bills that are underwriting currency in circulation. Effectively, it would authorize the Treasury to do a dollar-for-dollar swap of Treasury notes for Federal Reserve notes.

The federal reserve is a puppet of the President's.

that is exactly right.
they could try to do that lol.

it will be interesting to see what happens when/if Greece tries to break the chains of their enslavement to the global banks.

I'm interested in what you suppose the impediment would be?

Certainly currency is well within Congress' constitutional competence, so there would be no basis for judicial interference. The shareholder's investments in the Federal reserve are held in specie, so there would be no civil law impediment.

Frankly the only impediment is political. If your argument is that members of Congress are in thrall to commercial interests, you will find no argument here. But do not confuse political impediments with a lack of authority.

certainly i agree, they have the authority.
short version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpg76VjTa58

That, my friend, is where I'm dead right. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution. Furthermore, as no specific provision said document allows for the creation of a privatized "Federal Reserve Bank" and said document only gives Congress the right to create money, the Federal Reserve Bank is thus unconstituional in the first place. Now, if you can show me where in the Constitution I'm wrong, have at it.

Longshanks

To begin with, Cornflake, my family tree is public domain on Ancestry.com. My ancestry has been verified by the US, British, French, and Spanish govenrments. There is no crime in being proud of one's family heritage. You have said I have "impotently demanded". Demanded what? The tone of many of your posts has also been pompous and condescending. Bad idea to be throwing rocks when you live in a glass house. Perhaps you should worry about the logs in your eyes before you concern yourself with the splinters in mine. Having said that, take a lude and chill, dude.

Longshanks

you missed the key word :easily.

I fully understand the legal status that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is in.

and this legal status has NOTHING to do with the constitution. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, not a country.

if you want to try and pry the corporation of AMERICA away from the bankers's fingers, by all means try. you will find probably 10 million people to help you if you can get the fringe in on it.
however, they will start a war to stop you.

Your interpretation of the constitution might have political merit, but it is completely unfounded, legally. As Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

But let's not rely on monograph as our authority for the proposition that the Federal Reserve is infra vires the Congress, let's go to a primary source of law: judicial precedent. By way of authority, I direct you to McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 17 U.S. 316 in which the Court found that Congress had the power to establish the Second Bank of the United States. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution did not contain an express clause authorizing the creation of a central bank, but concluded that this did not settle the question of whether Congress had such a power. The Court relied on Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the "necessary and proper clause," as it came later to be known).

Any halfway competent law student knows that statutes (including the constitution) mean what the Courts say that they mean. So for the past 193 years, the enumeration of powers within Article I, section 8 has unambiguously conferred authority on Congress to create a central bank. Period. No amendment to the Constitution has ever been enacted to abridge the court's interpretation in McCulloch, so it remains good law.

Last time I checked, none of these governments were in the business of verifying ancestries.

Certainly the House of Lords has jurisdiction over the succession to peerages, and the Crown Office will adjudicate claims to the succession of baronetcies. But since you claim neither to be a peer nor a baronet, I see no basis under which any agency of the British Government would verify anything.

Now, you may have made a search of relevant civil records. You might even have delved into relevant parish records. But the claim that governments have verified your research is, at best, disingenuous. And probably more properly described as a pretentious lie.

These silly conspiracies about the Federal Reserve running this country are hilariously wrong.

The Fed only exists to reinforce the common truth in this country that you can get something for nothing.

Who let Alex Jones in here?

Is this theory the rationale behind the Tea Party talking point of "End the Fed"?

I've seen the video before, and basically it provides a history of money and especially of fractional reserve banking through the past few hundred years, as well as the history of the central banks in Europe and the US, so it's not an easy thing for someone to encapsulate in a way that will give you the gist of it.

In reply to the OP, I don't think every US president is necessarily a puppet of the Fed (I'm assuming you don't mean Obama specifically, since you didn't say so), though the Fed and big banks have way too much power and influence over our executive and legislative branches. If we had true campaign financing reform and some better rules in place for legislators' investments and financial dealings, that might change. But as it stands the big banks finance candidates heavily, and I'm quite sure it's nearly impossible to ignore the fact that someone has given you a lot of money, so I'm not at all convinced any legislator remains objective in representing the PEOPLE. Rep. Kucinich is one legislator who has refused corporate donations, so he may be one of a handful who aren't influenced by big money or banks, but he was just defeated.

IMO it would be best to do away with the Fed altogether. (The name, for one, is a misnomer and seems deliberately calculated to fool people into thinking it's actually a public rather than a private institution.) It's been speculated that JFK was assassinated because he wanted to do away with either the Fed or the CIA. Who knows? I've read another theory that he was killed because he wanted to reveal the truth about UFOs. We will never know the answer to that, whether he was killed because of some conspiracy or just one nut, so it's useless to speculate.

I do think President Wilson was a puppet when he helped create the Fed. He regretted that later in his presidency, when he realized why he was pressured (or conned) into it. I'm grateful that he at least said so, though it seems to be widely ignored that he did.

I don't think anybody actually cares about your family tree, except for you. The point is basically a jab at your concern, so your verification is kind of irrelevant to most of us.

Longshanks, given that multiple people on this forum(myself included) have come across the exact same problem with your posts, it is not likely that this is a conspiracy. Thus, the log-splinter comment comes off as silly. This isn't a pissing contest on who is worse, this people telling you that you are clearly doing something wrong. I agree, a lot of people here can be pompous and condescending, however, your actions are perceived as relatively extreme in this regard.

Makes me think of the big bang theory where Sheldon had to take some vacation. Because he was being so condescending his friends kept telling him to go away. After the fourth time he realized it must be himself.