The Greatest Recession
I pulled this image from the National Inflation Association- Charts
This is a wild chart. I super imposed my best guestimate fitting curve. As you can see, i tried to be conservative and deal with the bumps along the way. It's most certainly not perfect but it will do to demonstrate the ideas.
That red area is the area of the recession. There are a few notable things about this chart. The decline we've had in the recreated M3 over the last year has never happened in the last 40 years. Given the charts I've seen, this has never happened in the last century.
In order to be as prosperous as we were before the recession we need about $2.5 trillion more dollars in the system RIGHT NOW. Not some bailout for the banks or tax refund bull crap. The banks need to be loaning that amount within the next few months for us to really recover the way economists (at least were) talking about.
The dollars where the green line ends and the black line hitting 2010, is about $13.7 and $16.2 trillion dollars. The difference is about $2.5 trillion.
This is about the same amount the government has spent in budget deficits over the last 2 years. This is significant because as you can see that $2.5 trillion didn't move us up to where we "should" be. It shows either 1) just how ineffective government spending is in replacing economic output; or 2) The recreated M3 would be at $11.2 trillion if we are to believe that government spending was 100% effective at producing economic growth. I'd like to thank both the Federal Government and the banking industry for this monster.
My sense is that excessive government spending doesn't produce real sustainable economic growth. This includes the huge budget for the military. Funding technology in the military is important but only when it has real civilian use. Research, yada, yada. Agreed. Though it most certainly could and probably should be sliced in half if not more. That would be value being directly injected into the economy through lower inflation and lower taxes in the long run. This is getting at least closer to a more sustainable future.
By January 2011, this estimate shows the M3 needing to be ~$18 trillion. Obama just submitted his budget. It's enormous. The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. $18 trillion minus $16.2 is $1.8 trillion. That's damn close.... and that won't do a damn thing except cause more inflation. They need to get that value some how. (Stealing it from you is socially acceptable, no?)
Our single party system, the Corporate Republicrats, have no idea what they are doing to secure America. Removing our freedoms "for security" is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. As soon as we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the "enemy" shipped out. Better to live to fight another day. The got us bogged down and now have the Military Industrial Complex stuck in a growing feedback loop which is sucking down our national value. More military is not the correct answer... A smarter, leaner, more efficient, and productive military is. Until our "leaders" realize that terrorism is the application of "We will fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" we won't get anywhere and we won't be all that much more secure either. If they take a page from our playbook, which a smart terrorist would do, they will attack US HERE... not our military there. The former is much scarier. Duh. I'm not going to get into how terrorism is likely a false flag operation especially given all the shady circumstances.
Obama! Yo! Fix it! Also, can we put Bush on trial as a War Criminal? Congress didn't even declare war. They put a face on terrorism and then funded its destruction without actually consenting to explicitly to kill it. Then the Republicans declare the Democrats as being soft? That's a load of bull crap. If you want something to happen, do it the way the Constitution defines it be done. It's not legitimate if you don't. You can't make claims that anybody is "soft on terror" because they believe in the constitution. In fact, making these claim only makes you "soft on democracy."
Ah yes, how is this for communist/facsist?
If you don't follow the corporate party line (on either side), you are ostracized and made not important by the corporate mega-phone media.
Wait a minute... Isn't this reminiscent of Communist Russia?
Elizabeth Warren On The Daily Show: If We Don’t Act ‘The Game Really Is Over’
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren | ||||
|
||||
I've always liked Elizabeth Warren because she is right.
Just as I posted earlier, people are waking up to the fact that politics is theatre and that politicians do not represent us (at least most of them). It's angering but it's important to get a third party or more going in America.
My solution to making third parties real is laws stating that all elections are to be instant run-off. Instead of voting for one candidate, you prioritize them. If the one you chose first doesn't have enough votes your next in line is thus counted as your choice. So, you could have voted in the last Presidential Election like this
- Ron Paul
- Cynthia McKinney
- Ralph Nader
- Dennis Kucinich
- Barack Obama
How sweet would that be? If none of your other choices had a chance, you still could have helped to defend against McCain (or visa versa). You could actually vote based on your principles instead of the lesser of two evils. If course it must be said that our political party election system is more like voting for the one evil as they really are the same party with different faces. I ask you, what would McCain have done substantially different from Obama? And how is Obama any different than Bush?
What if Obama declared the Fractional Reserve System bankrupt?
Right now would be a perfect time for Obama to wake up and declare the fractional reserve system a primary systemic cause of the economic problems we are having. Steady inflation is by far not steady value. This was one principle the Federal Reserve was founded upon. Congress is the only body capable of regulating the value of money, according to the Constitution of the United States.
Inflation is actually theft of value from everyone else. The value represented by a dollar reduces ever so slightly for the new dollars being created to have their value. This can also be seen as a tax to keep inflation going. This is incredibly idiotic that we should pay the banks value like this. This is so that they can lend the value back to us with interest? In return for the banks stealing/taxing us, we become more in debt. This debt is what we call money. We are really trading each others debt to the banks.
What's a bit nutty is that we all try to amass as much bank issued debt as possible. Our bank account is just the money a bank issued for a loan.
Inflation is a special tax though. This is a tax without representation. Yeah, so the Federal Reserve Chairperson is confirmed by the President and Congress. You don't see any of them yelling for change to the fractional reserve system. Ron Paul, Alan Grayson, and Dennis Kucinich seem to be the only ones with the faintest clue what's going on. All the traditional party lines on both sides support this unrepresented tax.
It's also not like you can just stop paying the tax... they take it without your control or knowledge. It's best to hide things in plain day-light. If you say "well, but that's the way it's always been!" then you're rationalizing being screwed your entire life. This all started with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
So, Obama, if you're listening, now is the right time to declare the Federal Reserve System a fraud, Fractional Reserve Banking as morally bankrupt, accuse Congress of unconstitutionally giving their money powers away. Here's the kicker. You can't lose to the truth. It would be very, very, slick to get FBI, CIA, or some other agency to get in there to collect evidence. The Federal Attorney General could sue the Federal Reserve or Congress for their unconstitutional ways. Of course, the problem is that there are wackos in the conservative wing that might just "read the constitution" in some novel, uninformed way. Any judge that supports the Fractional Reserve System should be impeached. The Constitution clearly states that the Congress should be doing this.
One can dream... How about locking the lot of the robber-barrons in jail with Madoff?
Corporate Personhood: First Amendment Rights
Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
Reporting from Washington - Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.
The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money.
President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending money on politics.
...
Until Thursday, corporations and unions were barred from spending their treasury funds on broadcast ads, campaign workers or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate.The restriction dates to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt persuaded Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money into federal races. After World War II, Congress extended the ban to labor unions. More recently, the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 added an extra limit on corporate and union-funded broadcast ads in the month before an election. Such ads were prohibited if they even mentioned a candidate running for office.
Thursday's decision swept away all of these restrictions.
"The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. While the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission dealt only with corporations, the ruling will probably also free unions to spend as they wish.
Two significant prohibitions were left standing. Corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates, or to political parties. And the court affirmed the requirement that sponsors of political ads disclose who paid for them. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on these points.
Thursday's decision was supported by five justices who were Republican nominees: Kennedy and Thomas along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a 90-page dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford, a Republican. Stevens, who will turn 90 in April, spoke in a halting voice as he read part of his dissent in the courtroom Thursday.
He called the decision "a radical change in the law." He predicted that the ruling would "cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
The decision displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech.
...
Stevens and the dissenters said that the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments."Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, Stevens said.
...
When his(this) case first reached the Supreme Court, the conservative justices voiced alarm that the government could restrict a movie, or perhaps a book, that criticized a candidate simply because it was paid for with corporate money. In September, they heard the case for a second time to broadly consider the issue of corporate-funded election ads.Chief Justice Roberts said he was convinced that a broad free-speech ruling was required. Otherwise, it "would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."
I have so many issues with this that it felt like someone kicked me in the chest. Watching this move through the system was worrisome. This decision has only further solidified the fascist take over of our republic.
I wrote about corporate personhood last year during Sotomayor's admission into the court. She is very much questioning not just first amendment rights but giving any constitutional rights to corporations.
Once again, the strict constructionist conservative wing of the Supreme Court threw out their ideals and voted to further corporate power and it's take-over of our government. It's *($%^ infectious. It's growing and they have bastardized the US Constitution again.
This is how the strict constructionists strayed to lands beyond from their ideals. Strict Constructionists
"Strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws.
The original intent of the constitution nor the 14th Amendment never even considered corporations as actual people. If they had intended Corporations to have the same constitutional rights as individuals they would have written "People and Corporations" throughout the document. In fact, before corporations had personhood, they needed a charter for organization which needed to be continually renewed by each state. That is the original intent of the Constitution.
There are a few arguments for it:
- Investor protection
- Management protection
There are so many arguments against it:
- They have a LOT money, translating into more and more effective speech for corporations
- They enjoy more rights in the form of lower tax rates and then just on profit. This is like taxing Caucasians 20% and everyone else 25%. Secondly, imagine if actual people were only taxed on what we "save" because all living costs were tax deductible? Also, imagine states fighting for your citizenship by giving you incentives like no state taxes for 10 years? These corporate "people" have preferential laws.
- It is a form of double representation. The investors are already represented as themselves. They vote and can put their own money towards a campaign. If you invest in a company but want another canditate to win other than what is being supported by the corporation, then the corporation is not accurately representing you.
- Corporations make false claims and representations. They use their First Amendment Rights to do great harm to the people. A great example of this is the Tobacco and Cigarette Industry claiming that smoking was safe and funding skewed studies.
- Financial Ratings companies like Standard & Poor and Moody say that their financial ratings are opinion and protected by the First Amendment. So, when they rated toxic assets as AAA they had no liability to their word even though the entire financial industry depends on these ratings accuracy. Giving them accountability may actually force them to give securities proper ratings.
- The Constitution cannot be cherry-picked. A real person cannot only have some right in the constitution. A person MUST have all rights. The problem is that corporations are slaves and cannot vote, to name two important conflicts with corporations having the full rights of the constitution.
- A corporation legally must maximize shareholder value. This is the highest law to the corporation and can even be sued by shareholders if found to not be doing this. These include things that could be "to the detriment of people." Corporations do not have the same priorities as actual people who exist in reality. Two or three times a day, we eat. Without sufficient food we die. Corporations don't have these daily existential crises
Solutions:
- Force the court to explain why corporations don't have full First Amendment Rights as people do. Corporations are "artificial people" after all. Justice Clarence Thomas had the clarity to at least do away with this contradiction.
- Force the court to tell us how corporations are not slaves.
- Force the court to tell us how corporations will participate in voting during an election.
- Force the court to tell us how a corporation can use a firearm without any other person helping.
- Force the court to tell us how a corporation can be conscripted into a war if we re-instate the draft.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations younger than 21 can possess alcohol.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations don't have identification cards like passports or driver licenses.
- Force the court to tell us how to imprison a corporation in a jail.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations owned by foreign entities, including foreign governments, can have rights under our constitution.
Any answers to these questions are purely rationalizations.
I don't believe any of this can be done because a corporation by itself cannot think, learn, or feel. It cannot be thrown in jail for the lack of physical presence. It cannot pull a lever in a voting booth nor mark any paper. A corporation does not need food or water. It doesn't even need toilet paper. It does not need to breath and cannot ever be hospitalized. A corporation never came out of a vagina (or c-section) nor must it eventually die. It cannot use a firearm. It is not conscious and can only act through proxies.
or we could just,
Remove corporate personhood. Singapore doesn't have corporate personhood and, while investment and growth is hampered, it still has a thriving economy where the risk of corporations is priced, truly, into its market value.
I'm not quite sure how corporate protection should look but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
My last point is that this ruling clearly flies in the face of stare-decisis. This was an important aspect to confirming the Supreme Court Judges Alito and Roberts in the Judiciary Committee of Congress.
9/11 Pentagon Attack Videos?
There have got to be tens if not hundreds of video tapes of the 9/11 Pentagon attack.
Why are they not releasing these tapes unless they have something to hide?
Given that it was so long ago, it's no longer really a national security issue... unless there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.
When you look at the building, there is no destruction where the engines of the plane would have hit the building.
I call for the US government to release ALL tapes without edits from the 9/11 Pentagon Attack.
How about these apples?
S&P 500 P/E Ratio – The hidden truth
Standard & Poor's New Policy: Concealing the S&P 500 P/E Ratio from the General Public
Some high-level decision-maker at Standard & Poor's has decided that the public should no longer be allowed easy access to this crucial number: the Price/Earnings ratio of the S&P 500.
That number went above 140 on September 30, 2009 -- the highest ever recorded. It had continued upward all year.
...
My guess is that the company came under pressure from the brokerage industry to stop publishing what has to be a frightening statistic for brokers, a statistic that says "Sell!"
In other words, if you use 16 as the normal P/E ratio for the S&P 500 then stocks are about 8.75 times over valued for their earnings.
To put things in context of what exactly this means I'll use the tech bubble in 1999/2000. People bought into the mania that drove stock prices to excessive levels but then it happened... The Crash. P/E ratios pushed towards their historical norm and the NASDAQ fell from 5,048.62 to below 2300.
If you apply the same logic here, we're looking at the S&P index dropping to less than 600. If you account for inflation, it would be 400 in year 2000 dollars by the official CPI index and 300 if you go by the shadowstats.com inflation index.
Will investors realize their stocks are way over-valued? All the while, the media is keeping this very quiet because they don't want to wake the sleeping giant. I'll tell you this: I don't want to be in stocks right now.
Is the H1N1 Vaccine Causing Auto-immune Disorder?
Teen Diagnosed With Guillain-Barre Syndrome After Swine Flu Shot
A high school athlete from Virginia was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome hours after receiving a swine flu shot, but health authorities are attempting to dismiss the connection as a coincidence, precisely as they resolved to do long before the H1N1 vaccination program even started.
14-year-old Jordan McFarland developed severe headaches, muscle spasms and weakness in his legs following a swine flu shot. He was diagnosed by doctors at Inova Fairfax Hospital as having Guillain-Barre syndrome, the nerve disorder that was prevalent in recipients of the vaccine during the last mass swine flu vaccination program in 1976.
“Connin and Jordan’s father, Calvin McFarland, both 38, believe the shot sparked the illness that came on 18 hours after the boy’s vaccination,” reports MSNBC.
...
Efforts on behalf of health authorities to claim that debilitating side-effects and nerve disorders such as GBS have no connection to the vaccine, despite the fact that they are clearly listed on vaccine inserts as potential dangers, is unsurprising considering this is precisely what officials resolved to do before the swine flu mass vaccination program began.Back In September, Reuters reported on how public health officials were expecting “an avalanche of so-called adverse event reports, which are reports of death, illness or other health trauma,” in the two weeks after people receive the vaccine.
There is a little thing called Cause and Effect. The chances of developing GBS is 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000. Meaning, 3,000 to 6,000 cases in the US every year. There is no chance that the vaccine could cause this GBS? This has even been documented in with the swine flu vaccine in 1976 when 500 vaccine takers were diagnosed... in just the way Jordan was: right after the vaccine.
There is also a chance of this happening too
Where 72 kg of seasonal flu vaccine were contaminated with bird flu. How exactly could this have been an accident? The government contracts removes all liability for the companies. A pandemic is now easy to declare (because there is no death clause now). They stand to earn billions from the vaccine.
1933 is to 2009 as Apples are to Apples- Ron Paul of the Great Depression
Louis Thomas McFadden (July 25, 1876 – October 1, 1936) was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.
...
McFadden's main official legacy was the working on and the passing of the McFadden Act of 1927 limiting federal branch banks to the city in which the main branch operates. The Act sought to give national banks competitive equality with state-chartered banks by letting national banks branch to the extent permitted by state law. The McFadden Act specifically prohibited interstate branching by allowing national banks to branch only within the state in which it is situated. Although the Riegel-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed this provision of the McFadden Act, it specified that state law continues to control intrastate branching, or branching within a state's borders, for both state and national banks
...
McFadden is also remembered for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which he claimed was created and operated by European banking interests who conspired to economically control the United States. On June 10, 1932, McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives[2] , in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. McFadden also claimed that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution through the Federal Reserve banks and the European central banks with which it cooperated. McFadden moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover in 1932, and also introduced a resolution bringing conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The impeachment resolution was defeated by a vote of 361 to 8; it was seen as a big vote of confidence to President Hoover from the HouseIn 1933, he introduced House Resolution No. 158, articles of impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks.
McFadden died in 1936 on a visit to New York City and was interred in East Canton Cemetery in Canton, Pennsylvania.
Speculation of foul play has risen regarding McFaddens death. Some conspiracy theorists have proposed that he was poisoned as the result of his attempt to impeach members of the central bank in the United States
This battle between the Federal Reserve and the people is not new. It's been going on since the Federal Reserve was established. Louis McFadden was just like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in their warning of central banking and monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve accused of Treason in 1934
Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSUREMr. McFadden, due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for
more than 10 years, was the best posted man on these matters in America and was in a position to speak with authority of the vast ramifications of this gigantic private credit monopoly.
...
(The Speech)
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over."This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
...
the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave.
...
"One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson's time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence.
...
"The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. This is an era of misery and for the conditions that caused that misery, the Fed are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.
...
"In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Against its will it has been made the backer of horse thieves and card sharps, bootlegger's smugglers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world. Through the Fed the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government.
...
"Recently in one of our States, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. They are the victims of the Fed. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery.
...
"The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known.
...
"Hon. L.J.Hill, a former member of the House, said, and truly: "They are obligations of the Government for which the United States received nothing and for the payment of which at any time, it assumes the responsibility: looking to the Fed to recoup itself.'
...
By making money artificially scarce, interest rates throughout the Country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people
...
Is it any wonder that American labor which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers?
...
"Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?
...
"Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States."The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.
"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.
...
"The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine.
...
"The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare."It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but these are padlocked, and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.
"The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.
...
"What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States.
...
"The Fed should be repealed, and the Fed Banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officials who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial."Unless this is done by us, I predict, that the American people, outraged, pillaged, insulted and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath, and will sweep the money changers out of the temple.
"Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens.
...
"(The Federal Reserve Note) is the money of slaves, not of free men.
...
"They likewise entered into a conspiracy to deprive the people of the U.S. of their title to the war debts and not being able to do that in the way they intended, they are now engaged in an effort to debase the American dollar
...
"The U.S. Treasury cannot be made liable for them. The Fed currency must be redeemed by the Fed banks or else these Fed banks must be liquidated.
...
"Whereas, I charge. . . (many, many names), Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars;
...
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S.
This was even when the US Dollar was backed by gold! It's a remarkable testament that we don't learn from history.
I believe it's time to start looking to accuse our Representatives as criminally compliant with the Federal Reserve who don't vote for Auditing the Federal Reserve.
Will we learn this time? Will we audit and eliminate the Fed?