Ron Paul, The Constitution, and a Full Audit of The Federal Reserve Bank

A few facts and a little history first:

A conspiracy theory is an idea that a conspiracy exists without evidence supporting the theory.  A conspiracy is no longer a theory when the evidence proves the conspiracy.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Bank is not a part of the U.S. Government.  It is a privately owned bank. At one time this fact was said to be a rumor and it was considered a conspiracy theory. When the truth was revealed, we found that even the choice of its official sounding name was an intentional effort to hide its privately owned bank status.  Since the Federal Reserve Bank’s formation in 1913, its success was only possible if it could keep its purpose secret. In fact, history proves information about The Federal Reserve Bank was deliberately suppressed.

A book, written by Eustace Mullins in 1950, detailing the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and the questionable congressional passage of the act that gave it power, was blocked from publication in the United States for two years. The book was banned and burned in other countries. Over the course of his lifetime, the author was ostracized by politicians and the influential moneyed elite. Praised by many today as a true patriot and the ultimate investigative writer, that is not how he was described by those in power. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal Mullins was characterized by the FBI as an “insane… vicious… depraved… warped…degenerate homosexual… jackal… and prolific writer”.

.

The money behind Woodrow Wilson’s election was from those who benefited from passage of the act. He was promised the presidency if he would support the Federal Reserve Act. After passage, President Wilson regretted ever signing it into law and wrote, 

Woodrow Wilson

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”  

Representative Dr. Ron Paul

Only in the last few years, thanks largely to research capabilities available through the internet and the efforts of U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul, have many citizens become aware the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government or under the control of the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank. 

The framers of the Constitution were opposed to the formation of a central bank.

Rep. Ron Paul and a growing number of members of congress have come to realize how the nation has been duped. Now millions of U.S. citizens have come to understand the politics surrounding the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

As of July 18, 2012, House of Representatives Bill 459 has 270 co-sponsors which assures its passage in the House.  The bill was introduced by Dr. Ron Paul.  Dr. Paul has sponsored numerous bills to remove power from the Federal Reserve Bank or dissolve it entirely. Early in his career, he began urging congress to at least have a full, clear and transparent audit of the Fed.  All of his requests met resistance until the financial collapse of 2008.  Finally, in 2009, the House did pass a full audit bill. 

When the Senate bill, which became known as the Dodd-Frank Act, was passed, it only allowed a very restricted audit.  Viewing the actions of the Fed was confined to a very narrow, date specific timeframe surrounding the events of the 2008 crisis.  No one really expected to find anything that wasn’t already public.

SURPRISE!

In 2008, amid cries of protest, congress approved TARP, a $700 billion dollar bailout. Many tax payers did not want to be responsible for the repayment of the funds, because the funds were going to banks and private businesses.  The popular consensus was that many in the financial markets had been behaving like gambling addicts with taxpayer dollars.  The Federal Reserve Bank is fully backed by the U.S. government’s promise to repay. That means the taxpayer is ultimately responsible to pay the loans provided by The Federal Reserve Bank.

Senator Dodd

Senator Frank

The limited audit made possible by the Dodd-Frank Act resulted in the discovery that, in addition to the $700 billion loan bail out, the Federal Reserve Bank also loaned another $16+ trillion to private business and banks in other nations.  Repeat: In addition to the $700 billion TARP passed by congress, another $16+ trillion was loaned and neither the congress nor the taxpayers were aware of this fact.  

Yet the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the guarantee that the loans are paid. Remember, this was found on a date limiting full audit.

If a date limited audit revealed this tightly held secret, what other loans might the taxpayers be responsible for without their knowledge? That is why Ron Paul, along with 270 co-sponsoring congressmen, has re-introduced the same full audit bill that was requested in 2008. There are millions of Americans who would like to know what an unlimited, full audit would reveal.

As stated, there is no doubt that HR 459 will pass in July 2012 because of the 270 co-sponsors. 

Now comes the challenging part.  In order for a bill to become law, it also must be passed in the Senate and then signed by the President.  Senate Bill 202 is now in place.  It was authored by Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s son.  It is identical to House Bill 459.  Unfortunately, at this time it does not have adequate support in the Senate and without extreme pressure placed by the tax payer on their Congressmen, it appears doomed to fail.

Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke

The mainstream media consistently report the statements by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that passing such a bill could add a political pressure factor into the decisions the Fed makes.

Let’s certainly hope so. 

The fact is that the decisions the Fed has made in the past are already highly politically motivated, as proven by the limited full audit.  The very passage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act of 1913 was politically motivated.  The Dodd-Frank Act that allowed the limited, full audit reveals only a small glimpse into their political motivations and possible conflicts of interest.   

It obviously takes the power of money, in enormous amounts, to be elected to high public office in this country. Look at today’s headlines for the evidence.  President Barak Obama is whining like a spoiled child because the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is receiving more contributions of campaign funds.

Look at who is contributing to their campaigns.  Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are receiving some of their the greatest campaign contributions from the very same banks, financial institutions, and corporations that received bail out funds from TARP.  Many of those same fund recipients received billions and trillions more from the Fed than were revealed to the government or the people. 

In order for a Senator to remain in office, he or she has to receive campaign contributions from somewhere.  If a Senator supports a full audit of the Fed, the truth would be certain political suicide.  The last thing the banks want is the exposure of their ties and possible conflicts of interest with the private bankers who own the Federal Reserve.  If the curtain was pulled back, it would reveal that the monetary power and control over our government has been the Fed’s very purpose all along. Those politicians that protect the Federal Reserve are its puppets and they will prosper; those that don’t are identified as flakes or troublemakers. 

The root of the gradual erosion of the U.S. Constitution and thus our republic has been the owners of the Federal Reserve and those who benefit financially or politically from its existence.  Starting and financing wars, foreign aid, and social security are all politically approved under the guise of helping the nation, but in truth, all these policies financially benefit the private owners of the central bank, known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

Unless the current U.S. Senate can be pressured by the power of the people demanding passage of SB 202 in its current form, there is little hope this nation will continue to exist long enough to return to our constitutional foundations which were designed to ensure our liberty.

The Federal Reserve is literally banking on the fact that the majority of U.S. citizens are too distracted putting bread on their tables or pursuing the newest forms of entertainment to take the few minutes necessary to make a call to their Senator and demand SB 202 be passed.  Of course, the Fed has a back up plan.  You can be assured the bail out recipients will call Senate offices and explain that in the next election cycle they won’t be receiving campaign contributions. Which is more important, the money or the vote?  No problem; with enough money the voting machines can be rigged.

Written by

Barbara Shoff

Edited by

Denise Snyder

The Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Actions Result in Constitutional Limbo for ACA

The SCOTUS actions were unconstitutional when they arrived at a 5-4 decision in favor of passing the Affordable Care Act.

SCOTUS is charged with determining whether the intent of legislation placed before them is constitutional. That is not what happened.

President Obama, supporting members of Congress, and the attorneys presenting the case, repeatedly argued that the defined wording within the act was for a "penalty" and not a "tax".  All of SCOTUS rightly found the use of the term "penalty", which was the intent of the act, unconstitutional.  That finding is where the court should have stopped.  To go beyond that specified determination and ruling on anything other than original intent was unconstitutional.  

From SCOTUS Dissenting Opinions:

“The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
 The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.”

The five supporting Justices stepped beyond their Constitutional purpose by going further.

Perhaps those five favoring Justices allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by political demands to cross that line.

However, when they did cross that line, they effectively put the Act in limbo because Congress did not vote on a new tax. 

One can only hope the Justices' desire was to show the President and Congress how ludicrous the ACA was in the first place. 

It is unconstitutional to force a penalty on citizens using the Commerce clause for not buying something against their will. 

Instead POTUS offered a solution to passage of the act, by magically changing the word "penalty" to the word "tax".  Of course, the President and his supporters immediately jumped on this opportunity to “save” the act, but continue to refuse to call it a tax.

You would think, the President, whose expertise is supposed to be Constitutional law, would have at least taken a moment’s pause before cheering a victory.

Per the Constitution, legislation on taxes must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This act was not passed using the word "tax", it was passed using the word "penalty".

As a tax, this would be the largest tax imposed on the American people in the entire history of our nation.  It targets the middle and lower income citizens; the very people who cannot afford to purchase even minimal insurance coverage in the first place and who the act was supposed to help.