Forget the Russians: It’s the Federal Reserve Seeking to Meddle in Our Elections

[Skylar]

Here. Learn, dummy - The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In making his case to President Washington for the constitutionality of a central bank, which had been explicitly rejected at the constitutional convention, Hamilton invented the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. These were "powers" that were not expressly delegated to the federal government in the document, but could be "implied" by clever lawyers like Hamilton. This of course became a roadmap for the total destruction of constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government.

The First Bank of the United States "promptly fulfilled its inflationary potential," Rothbard writes in his History of Money and Banking in the United States (p. 69). It issued millions of dollars in paper money and demand deposits "pyramiding on top of $2 million in specie." The Bank invested heavily in the US government, and "The result of the outpouring of credit and paper money by the new Bank of the United States was … an increase [in prices] of 72 percent" from 1791–1796.

Northern merchants provided the main political support for Hamilton's Bank, whereas southern politicians like Jefferson supplied most of the opposition to it, seeing it as nothing more than a vehicle for financing an American version of the corrupt British mercantilist system, which would be destructive of liberty and prosperity. They were right, of course, and remain right to this day.

Thanks. I agree that Washington thought the central bank was constitutional.

This is what I'm saying. The Founders clearly picked a team on central banking.

Making NC's battle first with the Founders and THEN with central banking.

NC is clearly more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the Founders.

Many founders were against this. So I'm not sure where your sarcasm comes from.

Many founders were against this.

Since the Founders actually voted a central bank into existence, apparently more were for it...…..

By a ratio of about 2 to 1.

 

[Skylar]

The national bank is what split the US into 2 parties. Because the constitution didnt give the fed gov that enumerated power..
It's also important to note the bank was privately owned and managed.
Clearly unconstitutional.

Says you. The founders voting on the matter favored the creation of a central bank by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. Including both Washington and Hamilton. It was one of the first things this nation ever did under our Constitution, being created less than 2 years after the Constitution went into effect in the first half of Washington's first term, and the very first session of Congress ever.

With Washington concluding that yes, it was indeed constitutional.

And the courts never having found that either bank was 'unconstitutional'.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the judgment of the founders, Hamilton, Washington, and 220 years of the courts contradicting you.....and instead override them all with your personal opinion?

I can't think of a single reason.

 

[Skylar]

Washington signed it into law.

Here. Learn, dummy - The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In making his case to President Washington for the constitutionality of a central bank, which had been explicitly rejected at the constitutional convention, Hamilton invented the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. These were "powers" that were not expressly delegated to the federal government in the document, but could be "implied" by clever lawyers like Hamilton. This of course became a roadmap for the total destruction of constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government.

The First Bank of the United States "promptly fulfilled its inflationary potential," Rothbard writes in his History of Money and Banking in the United States (p. 69). It issued millions of dollars in paper money and demand deposits "pyramiding on top of $2 million in specie." The Bank invested heavily in the US government, and "The result of the outpouring of credit and paper money by the new Bank of the United States was … an increase [in prices] of 72 percent" from 1791–1796.

Northern merchants provided the main political support for Hamilton's Bank, whereas southern politicians like Jefferson supplied most of the opposition to it, seeing it as nothing more than a vehicle for financing an American version of the corrupt British mercantilist system, which would be destructive of liberty and prosperity. They were right, of course, and remain right to this day.

Thanks. I agree that Washington thought the central bank was constitutional.

This is what I'm saying. The Founders clearly picked a team on central banking.

Making NC's battle first with the Founders and THEN with central banking.

NC is clearly more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the Founders.

Meh......maybe. So far, most of what I've seen are lots of cuts and pastes. That doesn't necessarily denote any particular knowledge beyond the ability to hit 'Ctrl + C' and 'Ctrl +P'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Washington signed it into law.

Here. Learn, dummy - The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In making his case to President Washington for the constitutionality of a central bank, which had been explicitly rejected at the constitutional convention, Hamilton invented the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. These were "powers" that were not expressly delegated to the federal government in the document, but could be "implied" by clever lawyers like Hamilton. This of course became a roadmap for the total destruction of constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government.

The First Bank of the United States "promptly fulfilled its inflationary potential," Rothbard writes in his History of Money and Banking in the United States (p. 69). It issued millions of dollars in paper money and demand deposits "pyramiding on top of $2 million in specie." The Bank invested heavily in the US government, and "The result of the outpouring of credit and paper money by the new Bank of the United States was … an increase [in prices] of 72 percent" from 1791–1796.

Northern merchants provided the main political support for Hamilton's Bank, whereas southern politicians like Jefferson supplied most of the opposition to it, seeing it as nothing more than a vehicle for financing an American version of the corrupt British mercantilist system, which would be destructive of liberty and prosperity. They were right, of course, and remain right to this day.

Thanks. I agree that Washington thought the central bank was constitutional.

This is what I'm saying. The Founders clearly picked a team on central banking.

Making NC's battle first with the Founders and THEN with central banking.

NC is clearly more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the Founders.

Meh......maybe. So far, most of what I've seen are lots of cuts and pastes. That doesn't necessarily denote any particular knowledge beyond the ability to hit 'Ctrl + C' and 'Ctrl +P'

I was being facetious. Clearly.

 

[TNHarley]

The first Congress was not the founding fathers. Idk why you 2 keep implying that.
The "father" of the constitution was against it...
Nowhere in the enumerated powers does it give the fed gov to establish a central bank. That is a states job.
Skylar, it also wasnt the first session of the first congress. It was the third session.

 

[TNHarley]

Hamiltons made up "implied powers" in the constitution was the biggest power grab in history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The first Congress was not the founding fathers. Idk why you 2 keep implying that.
The "father" of the constitution was against it...
Nowhere in the enumerated powers does it give the fed gov to establish a central bank. That is a states job.
Skylar, it also wasnt the first session of the first congress. It was the third session.

The "father" of the constitution was against it...

The "father" of the country was for it...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hamiltons made up "implied powers" in the constitution was the biggest power grab in history.

Yep. Typical lawyer. Ha. Most in D.C. are Hamiltonian, too. The only good news is we're probably near the end of fiat system. Never before in the history of man has a fiat system lasted this long and it's pretty close to popping. The dollar is worth near nothing. The Fed's losing control of the cost of money. And if we've been paying attention over the last decade, a buildup of international financial clearing infrastructure has been happening as other nations join the Asian and what used to be BRICS banks. We're also seeing some interesting space mergers where countries are partnering to put up satellites. That's what the so-called 'space force' is all about, don't let anyone fool you. Ha. Recall that the majority of Intelligence spying when they were caught was on the financial transactions of other nations.

But that's getting a little deep.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The "father" of the country was for it...

Here's a great quote taken from a letter from George Washington, written to James Madison on the topic.

He said, and correctly so, ''No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hamiltons made up "implied powers" in the constitution was the biggest power grab in history.

Yep. Typical lawyer. Ha. Most in D.C. are Hamiltonian, too. The only good news is we're probably near the end of fiat system. The Fed's losing control of the cost of money. And if we've been paying attention over the last decade, a buildup of international financial clearing infrastructure has been happening as other nations join the Asian and what used to be BRICS banks. We're also seeing some interesting space mergers where countries are partnering to put up satellites. That's what the so-called 'space force' is all about, don't let anyone fool you. Ha. Recall that the majority of Intelligence spying when they were caught was on the financial transactions of other nations.

But that's getting a little deep.

The Fed's losing control of the cost of money.

They lent money, overnight, and brought the rate back in line.

Does it cost more than the current target rate for an overnight repo?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "father" of the country was for it...

Here's a great quote taken from a letter from George Washington, written to James Madison on the topic.

He said, and correctly so, ''No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence."

I agree, the national debt is too large.

George Washington still approved of the creation of a central bank.

 

[Natural Citizen]

They lent money, overnight, and brought the rate back in line.

Toddster, you don't know what money is. That's your main problem. An IOU is not money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They lent money, overnight, and brought the rate back in line.

Toddster, you don't know what money is. That's your main problem. An IOU is not money.

IOU?

I have a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anything to anybody because of it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

IOU?

I have a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anything to anybody because of it.

Toddster, your twenty Federal Reserve Notes give you...oh...I'd say about eighty cents worth of purchasing power.

Real money is a store of value. Your twenty Federal Reserve Notes are not a store of value. The currency is almost completely devalued, it's already been debased long ago. 1971. Remember?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IOU?

I have a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anything to anybody because of it.

Toddster, your twenty Federal Reserve Notes give you...oh...I'd say about eighty cents worth of purchasing power.

Real money is a store of value. Your twenty Federal Reserve Notes are not a store of value. The currency is almost completely devalued, it's already been debased long ago. 1971. Remember?

Toddster, your twenty Federal Reserve Notes give you...oh...I'd say about eighty cents worth of purchasing power.

Nah, I can buy $20 worth of stuff with it.

So, who do I owe for my $20?
Or does someone owe me?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hamiltons made up "implied powers" in the constitution was the biggest power grab in history.

Yep. Typical lawyer. Ha. Most in D.C. are Hamiltonian, too. The only good news is we're probably near the end of fiat system. Never before in the history of man has a fiat system lasted this long and it's pretty close to popping. The dollar is worth near nothing. The Fed's losing control of the cost of money. And if we've been paying attention over the last decade, a buildup of international financial clearing infrastructure has been happening as other nations join the Asian and what used to be BRICS banks. We're also seeing some interesting space mergers where countries are partnering to put up satellites. That's what the so-called 'space force' is all about, don't let anyone fool you. Ha. Recall that the majority of Intelligence spying when they were caught was on the financial transactions of other nations.

But that's getting a little deep.

The Fed's losing control of the cost of money.

Money? LOL!

 

[Skylar]

IOU?

I have a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anything to anybody because of it.

Toddster, your twenty Federal Reserve Notes give you...oh...I'd say about eighty cents worth of purchasing power.

The guy at the store trading $20 worth of products for that $20 bill would disagree.

 

[Skylar]

The first Congress was not the founding fathers. Idk why you 2 keep implying that.
The "father" of the constitution was against it...

And yet Madison signed into law the SECOND bank of the United States.

So much for 'being against it'. In point of fact, Madison signed a Central Bank into law.

Nowhere in the enumerated powers does it give the fed gov to establish a central bank. That is a states job.
Skylar, it also wasnt the first session of the first congress. It was the third session.

The Founders disagreed. With Hamilton, Washington, and the 1st congress by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 all eager for a Central Bank. And affirming its constitutionality.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm amazed at the number of people who love keeping their descendants enslaved in perpetuity.
Being enslaved cannot be called living in liberty. Being enslaved restricts and in fact directs what and where liberty can be exercised.
Citizens are mostly ignorant and empty suits are mostly corrupt so relying on, or hoping, things will get better under restriction(s) is pissing in the wind. Both Party's subscribe to the borrow and spend to finance their ineptitude.
Ineptitude may not be a strong enough word for weak and corrupt bordering on evil. Control is the opposite of free. To restrict is the opposite of liberty. A debt based economy is not an economy built on a solid foundation. ALL Empires have failed.
An Empire built on debt will fail. It's not a matter of if, but when. Establishing colonies (Military bases) around the world may prolong the inevitable, but, in the big picture view of History it will be laid at the feet of those who believed themselves to be an omnipotent being with the power to rule them and theirs into prosperity on the backs of their slaves.

The constitution has been intentionally misinterpreted since before the ink was dry. It could be said it began with the word "implied" as that opens the door to misinterpretation which the empty suits in DC still do to this day.
It's a sad time in the world when the Country that allegedly believed in liberty is taken down through misinterpretation (implied)
by the very language it touts as its own, simple English, which is, allegedly, taught in the centers for public indoctrination called schools financed by the very restrictors of liberty- the masters referred to as central bankers.

 

[TNHarley]

The first Congress was not the founding fathers. Idk why you 2 keep implying that.
The "father" of the constitution was against it...

And yet Madison signed into law the SECOND bank of the United States.

So much for 'being against it'. In point of fact, Madison signed a Central Bank into law.

Nowhere in the enumerated powers does it give the fed gov to establish a central bank. That is a states job.
Skylar, it also wasnt the first session of the first congress. It was the third session.

The Founders disagreed. With Hamilton, Washington, and the 1st congress by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 all eager for a Central Bank. And affirming its constitutionality.

Madison signed it into law because of the war. He even backed out when peace negotiations started. But then the economy worsened and banks stopped redeeming notes.
It's not because he just changed his mind, as you so implied.
Still, that makes it no more constitutional. Again, implied powers was made up in thin air by one of the biggest statists in history