|
According to my understanding from these two documents above, this is the situation we are in:
Thanks largely to a 1914 act that created the Federal Reserve Bank under President Wilson, we now have a privately owned Federal banking institution instead of a publicly owned bank, contrary to our constitution which permitted only Congress to control our currency. This unfortunately has allowed a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few bank shareholders, largely through family lines and connections that can be traced back to the Bank of England.
Through the last century this group has consolidated control of most major banking institutions under the Federal Reserve. It has thus gained control over us and the better part of the world. The monolithic structure that has developed has worked to place us in increasing indebtedness. The more we place ourselves in debt to their financial structures, the more we place ourselves into servitude to them.
As it is now, when the U.S. government needs money, the Fed just prints the needed currency (backed up by virtually nothing but promises) and charges the government interest on this money. This spreads debt all over the world to guarantee profit for these private interests, and leaves us paying the interest on the debt with our income taxes. In other words, they are making money at our expense, and their profit structure is causing us to pay increasing amounts of interest, in the form of "income tax". This leads to another point: income taxes are not and were never legal, since this amendment was never fully ratified by the states. (P.S. A lot of cases have come forward and been dismissed in some states when people object to paying their taxes when they offer the foregoing defense.)
This system has also worked well to take control over other countries of the world. We loan them more money than they can afford to pay back and in return exact demands from them about developing their countries with American institutions. If they resist, we replace them. If we can't replace them, we declare war on them, profit from the war and take over their country at even greater expense to the taxpayers (and with great bloodshed of all populations involved).
In its essence, this is the kernal of the "one world government" doctrine that the Council for Foreign Relations supports. The neoconservative version of it is far more extreme and direct--a "new world order" that is not the result of economic agreement or peaceful diplomatic negotiations or allied agreements, but rather a more Straussian/Orwellian version wherein might makes right and the ends justify the means. Of course, peak oil and the increasing demands from rival powers do have a great deal to do with the thinking behind this unilateral, military "solution" to our problems.
The document I posted above asserts that we have a legal and Constitutional means to change the situation for ourselves. How? Principally by declaring the private ownership of the Fed unconstitutional, and return ownership to the public. There are ways in which we can achieve a solution, detailed in the above document. As I understand it, part of the proposal is to demand that the letter of our Constitution be followed, which is that only Congress has the right to dictate the printing of our currency. The other part involves taxpayers buying back the Fed's "original investment" of $450 million.
According to what I also understand from the above document, if we were to enact this plan, we would regain control of our banking industry with Congress as the regulatory body, and we would cut our income tax burden by up to 40%. The question is how this is to be accomplished. Do we do this through petition to our government? There are remedies described in the first document I posted, and I invite others to review these for input.
Perhaps, with a carefully crafted and constitutionally legally sound class action suit, we might bring our case to court. Of course, the longer we wait, the more likely it becomes that the supreme justices will be replaced with those sharing an even more radical view. In the meanwhile, legislation has been passed or is pending to further strip us of our rights and even to destroy the constitution itself. What's more, we are "at war", and as such any actions brought against our government can be construed as an act of sedition--even though this particular action should be wholly within our Constitutional purview.
Another action which might occur is that we cease to support any and all debt that has thus been unconstitutionally incurred. We could accomplish this in the form of a nationwide income tax strike, or in the form of a general strike by which we refuse to make payments on installment debt. There are no debtor's prisons. The creditors would have no buyers for our assets if everyone went on strike. This would cripple the system, at least for the short term, and long enough to force the situation to change. This is a radical solution, and would require a great deal of, perhaps impossible, concerted effort.
The other solution is a legal and less logically difficult route to take. We could accomplish it by establishing an ad hoc, bipartisan, group of constitutional scholars, economists and attorneys to develop a sound and legal approach to this extremely complex threat. I would greatly appreciate any discussion of this.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
