Abolish the Federal Reserve, Department of Energy

I’m choosing to address only these two points in this post. My reason for addressing these point is because it is on the agenda of Ron Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful.

Although abolition of the Federal Reserve and Department of Energy seems like an absolutely insane move, the reason I love Ron Paul is simply because such issues haven’t been in the spotlight of debate for a long time. Has the Federal Reserve really helped the U.S. economy? Is the Department of Energy of any use?

The reason I chose to discuss abolition of the Federal Reserve is because of the speech by Ben Bernanke that was recently brought to my attention, in which he states it was very likely that the creation of the Federal Reserve, and actions taken soon thereafter, were most likely the culprit of the Great Depression (federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS … efault.htm) Moving away from the gold standard has undoubtedly caused inflation, as more and more money is in print with absolutely no foundation in reality for backing it. Is the Federal Reserve necessary? I’ve seen it argued that countries without such an entity have suffered inflation so great that it made money nearly worthless, but would the same inevitably happen to America? In addition, I’ve read articles by major news networks that claim the Federal Reserve is simply “too busy,” and has to make too many “split second decisions,” to have to answer to anybody, including the White House or Congress. Does this seem reasonable to anybody else? That a non-government entity could be so busy that it must be left alone, answer to nobody, and should remain opaque to the public?

Now, on to the Department of Energy, another entity who’s motives I question. I never questioned it before Ron Paul’s suggestion to abolish such government endeavors, but I now remember something I’d seen on the Science Channel (josephnewman.com/) claimed to be able to get large amounts of energy from small sources. Now, first of all, I should mention that I have absolutely no background with how electrical things work (which is partly why I’m posting for debate), but he claims that the U.S. patent office has turned him down time and again under the notion that he’s trying to patent a perpetual motion machine, and that such is impossible.

Joseph Newman claims that his invention could provide large amounts of cheap energy to third world countries, as well as our nation, but he simply can’t get the funding because he isn’t able to get a patent on it, even though he’s demonstrated it and continues to demonstrate it time and again nationwide. Now, either his invention works or it doesn’t. Either he’s right or he’s not, but why isn’t this getting a more sincere investigation?

I think such topics should in the main spotlight of our discussions. For now, people like Ron Paul and Joseph Newman are considered lunatics. What a sad irony it would be if such men were right. Your thoughts?

The issue of the Federal Reserve creating the crash and resultant depression in America is covered in a reasonable amount of detail in The Money Masters, which is available on Google video and youtube…

Joseph Newman along with a few others have created machines that would make the Department of Energy obselite. The heads of energy companies won’t make any money with better technology, so they will do whatever they can to ensure innovations like these are hidden.

Of course, the militairy has used this technology for powering secret aircraft. Shhhh.

The Federal Reserve works against the people for many reasons. It’s really all about guys in suits finding ways to adjust the variables of a market to their advantage (like inflation). It’s all worthless money if they are no longer backed by gold- the eliete know this because they control the system- they convert their easily-earned money into assets as soon as they can.

The gold standard also provoked some dire times due to its limited stock. Which is explained in the Money Masters.


video.google.fr/videoplay?docid= … 0256183936

You’re correct.
Actually, I like the ideas for a solution after minute 36 in ‘Money as Debt’. Check it out if you haven’t seen it.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Please understand that there can be no standard.
Money supply should be expanded and contracted based on the needs for a given country.
If anyone thinks money needs a standard, then they don’t understand what money is.
More specifically, they don’t understand what VALUE is!

“Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” - Benjamin S. Bernanke

:astonished: … . . . . wow :astonished:

I feel safe now.

federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS … efault.htm

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin 1

America had learned that the people’s confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

[b]In Response the world’s most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.[/b]

Here is what Franklin said after that.

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”
Benjamin Franklin

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War.
Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography

By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.

What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.


The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it “in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry” and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder’s.

xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

Ronnie Paul knows all about this stuff, but keep in mind we’d have to slowly faze out these things, instead of just pulling out the economic blanket right away.

That’s why you don’t see him talking about 9/11 as a conspiracy on TV, despite his adament beliefs online – he knows how to play the game. He know it’s do or die at this point, and so he’s gotta bide his time and try and get in – where he can enact these changes.

I’m sad because Ronnie Paul isn’t gonna make in this election.
He’ll be beet by some other asshole.
I have hope for our future generations though.
I think the children of the baby boomers are going to be so freaken pissed at their parents for messing up the country that we will radically change things when we come to power and have the voice. I look forward to the day.

I think that my generation (I’m 26) are so opposed to any war, that the future is bright for us. Our generation is going to be one of the first truly international generations. I have hopes for us.

I think the IRS, DEA & BATF would be excellent candidates for elimination. There are plenty of other agencies that could oppress us if those three were gone.

How different will the world be when the masses understand this?
I preach the good news of ‘free currency’ whenever I get the chance.
I teach of Andrew Jackson’s fight to ‘kill the bank’, which he did.
On his tombstone he had it write, “I killed the bank”.
People today have no idea how incredible what Jackson did was.
Things MUST change someday.

Yes. The founding fathers were great thinkers. Too bad men like that are not in existance in this day and age.

I think most philosophers should study them.

“I killed the bank” on his tombstone, that’s a pretty stong message. :slight_smile:

As for the founding fathers, I would not have painted a whole group with such a broad brush. Franklin’s view would probably have been more nuanced had he had Internet :sunglasses:
http://tinyurl.com/2ch6cx

Well, I think the founding fathers were great thinkers. Franklin was a creative philosopher and scientist, perhaps not the best of either field, he still was very influential.

I have heard the founding fathers were freemasons, but let us not forget that is not always a bad thing.

Insofar as I know the DoI is a spiritual document. It’s brilliant.

“Paper money as such is alright, provided that our authorities are perfect and the kings are of
divine intelligence“
Aristotles

Inane populism - or, in this instance, anti-populism, given that most traditional populist platforms quite rightly adduce the need to levy taxes against the populist in support of social infrastructure - in a laughable and ludicrous effort to appear ‘radical’, which will, no doubt, appeal to the vast majority of crank-jobs, sloths, and other lifeforms-unfit-for-life infesting the Internet.

Money is itself no guarantor of value; it lacks any buying power whatsoever when it is not grounded upon an exchangeable commodity. Previous societies used the gold standard, because gold is scarce: money is required only in a pre-post-scarcity society for this reason; afterwards it becomes worthless. But today gold is no longer as scarce as it once was - it has lost a great deal of its buying power by virtue of its availability. In the drive towards a post-scarcity economy, we have removed all value from our money and made it a free-floating signifier backed by threat of force, nothing more. And yet this is inevitable, because post-scarcity will soon (relatively speaking) be upon us; a reversion to a gold standard now would be an absolutely hilarious way to end international finance once and for all.

Our system is with limit, and it can’t last forever. I’ve heard all the talk, but is there a solution? Can there be a stable form of currency?

A rare sight: A 501C-3 pastor explains to his church the inner-mechanics of the Federal Reserve system and debt.

video.google.com/googleplayer.sw … 9264&hl=en

It is a good laugh when people propose a return to it! =D>