Thursday, December 22, 2011

Federal Reserve Bank Truths

Federal Reserve Act

Fed Note vs US NoteThe first thing you need to know is it is within your power to stop the continual accumulation of our national debt.

You do not need to “petition congress” or “wait for the next election” and hope things change, because they won’t. Sadly, it doesn’t matter who gets elected.  Republican or Democrat, they are all on the same team with the same master.  The Federal Reserve.

We can get mad, wave signs and banners in the streets, even cry for revolution… It won’t change a thing.

It’s difficult to discuss this subject without sounding like a “conspiracy theorist”. In fact it’s not a theory, and everything I’m going to point out is actually in US Law. Starting with the Federal Reserve Act. It is in fact within the power of congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, but they will never do it.

One only has to look at how Ron Paul was mocked and marginalized during his presidential run to get an understanding of how embedded the Federal Reserve is in our political system. It is not a “wild conspiracy” and there is no greater evidence of that than the current events we see today.

So how does this work? There are two types of currency in circulation. US Notes, and Federal Reserve Notes.

Lawful Money = United States Notes;  Not “Federal Reserve Notes”

Title 12 USC §411 :—-000-.html


“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. “
(emphasis mine)

This proves that “Lawful Money” and “Legal Tender” are not the same.

All that is required is a restricted endorsement on the back of any check to the effect of:

Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411
True name dba Legal name

I have a red ink stamp. Your true name is your first and middle, your “legal name” is “FIRST LAST”. Look at your drivers license. Wonder why your name is in ALL CAPS? Same on your birth certificate. Same on any notice from a court. That’s your legal name, a trust formed by the government in order to do business with you and on you.

Make copies of all your checks (front and back) with your restricted endorsement. Keep them on file, or even better, file them in a case jacket at your nearest district court. This is what all the IRS will be required to see. Lawful money is not taxable income. You have not endorsed private credit, you have not bonded your substance to the contract with the Federal Reserve.

Those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.

That makes the bank unable to fractionally lend against your signature which serves as bond against the future interest and party to the national debt. This is what essentially reduces the people of the the United States to chattel.

When you sign or “endorse” your check you are bonding your substance behind fractional lending or “elastic currency”.  ONLY THEN is the elastic currency “as good as” Lawful Money.  But it is not Lawful Money.

You are “opting out” of the federal reserve system. The United States currently has 300 Million dollars of US notes in reserve. They stopped printing them because obviously they don’t want anyone using them.

You’ll remember what they look like. Take out a dollar bill, at the top on the “face” you’ll see “Federal Reserve Note” As clearly seen at the top of this page.

US Notes look almost the same, but the serial numbers are in red instead of green, the seal is in red, and the top says:  “United States Note”.  US Notes are the only currency that is recognized as “Lawful Money”, not just “legal tender”. (Fed Notes)

This law remains in full force and effect today. There is a video (long but worth it) DETAILING it here:

This is why “Constitutional” arguments cannot be brought. It is contract law. Every one of us has agreed by signature.

Our government was hijacked by a group of international bankers in 1913 that understood this.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Corporations have owners. The government of the United States borrows it’s own money, from this private corporation, pay interest on it, and collects that interest through it’s (the Federal Reserve) arm the I.R.S. The national debt is nothing more than the interest owed on the loans our government has received from this corporation for it’s own money.

To put it plainly and in the interest of brevity, If the Fed ended tomorrow, our debt would be gone. That’s oversimplified, yes but it’s not complicated.

Proof: There is only one President in history that has ever paid off the national debt. Andrew Jackson. How did he do it? He took back control of our own currency. He stopped the bank. Debt stopped accumulating, and we were able to pay all outstanding debts before his term ended. Conspiracy “wako”? No. It has happened before. >Look it up.

That wiki article is just tip of the iceberg but worth pointing out is the mention of the use of class warfare and it’s central theme in the discussion:

“The classic statement by Arthur Schlesinger was that the partisan politics during the Jacksonian period was grounded in class conflict. Viewed through the lens of party elite discourse, Schlesinger saw inter-party conflict as a clash between wealthy Whigs and working class Democrats”(Grynaviski).

President Andrew Jackson strongly opposed the renewal of its charter, and built his platform for the election of 1832 around doing away with the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson’s political target was Nicholas Biddle, financier, politician, and president of the Bank of the United States.

Apart from a general hostility to banking and the belief that specie (gold and/or silver) was the only true money, Jackson’s reasons for opposing the renewal of the charter revolved around his belief that bestowing power and responsibility upon a single bank was the cause of inflation and other perceived evils.

“Other perceived evils” indeed. Jackson understood as did many others that with this kind of fiat currency in place and not under the control of the United States we would soon become a nation of slaves to a debt that we could never repay.

Interesting that Wikipedia mentions that he was a slave owner in the first paragraph, but it isn’t until the bottom of the page that there is a small blurb that he was the first and only President to ever pay off the national debt. Immediately followed by “However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.”

I could go into how the war of 1812 and the depression following Jackson’s term were both caused directly by the international bankers to renew there charter in the first case, and re institute their charter in the second, but that is not the focus of this discussion. You are encouraged to read up on it yourself. As are you encouraged to read up on all of this yourself.

What I’m giving you is not conjecture. There are many that are doing this now, and have been for some 2 years. Many of the “tax arguments” in existence today have focused on the wrong things. “Constitutionality” and “Supreme Court” case law, it’s been right there in the Act the whole time.

Make no mistake, as the video on the homepage points out, it’s all about the exact “verbiage” that you use. If you get it wrong, you are in violation of your agreement with the Fed. By contract you have agreed to bond your substance for their credit. That’s what it means when they have said “income tax is voluntary”.

Did your parents ever explain why you are supposed to endorse the backs of your checks? I betting no. It’s something we are simply conditioned to do. We are never taught that our signatures are “worth” something.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...