The Future Conflict Between the US and International Banking Cartels (& co.)

[Stashman]

After the Treasury issues all the silver certificates to cover all the silver the government held, what happens?

The Fed still exists. The Fed still buys and sells Treasuries.

E.O. 11110 doesn't change that. How long until it was repealed?

Yes the Fed still existed, but the issuance of the silver certificates was the beginning of getting out of the Fed. Once Americans saw the savings of not using the Fed in that case, than the groundwork would be easier to lay down to end the Fed.

The executive order was repealed by LBJ. If you are LBJ and knew that Kennedy had been killed because of this would you not have repealed it too?

Why would issuing silver certs save money?
Why would silver certs eliminate the need for everything the Fed does.

Perhaps you would link to something that shows LBJ repealed it?

Alright I was wrong and it was not repealed at all, and is still an active executive order. I am man enough to admit when wrong.

For you to read in regards to Kennedy's stand on the Fed and the printing of the silver certificates you can follow the link. Btw, I seem to be the only one of us that submits any proof in regards to this matter. If you cannot than back into the hamster cage with you.

John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes the Fed still existed, but the issuance of the silver certificates was the beginning of getting out of the Fed. Once Americans saw the savings of not using the Fed in that case, than the groundwork would be easier to lay down to end the Fed.

The executive order was repealed by LBJ. If you are LBJ and knew that Kennedy had been killed because of this would you not have repealed it too?

Why would issuing silver certs save money?
Why would silver certs eliminate the need for everything the Fed does.

Perhaps you would link to something that shows LBJ repealed it?

Alright I was wrong and it was not repealed at all, and is still an active executive order. I am man enough to admit when wrong.

For you to read in regards to Kennedy's stand on the Fed and the printing of the silver certificates you can follow the link. Btw, I seem to be the only one of us that submits any proof in regards to this matter. If you cannot than back into the hamster cage with you.

John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X

You offered no proof the EO would end the Fed.
I've seen no proof the Fed killed JFK.
At least you're learning about some of your errors.

 

[Stashman]

Why would issuing silver certs save money?
Why would silver certs eliminate the need for everything the Fed does.

Perhaps you would link to something that shows LBJ repealed it?

Alright I was wrong and it was not repealed at all, and is still an active executive order. I am man enough to admit when wrong.

For you to read in regards to Kennedy's stand on the Fed and the printing of the silver certificates you can follow the link. Btw, I seem to be the only one of us that submits any proof in regards to this matter. If you cannot than back into the hamster cage with you.

John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X

You offered no proof the EO would end the Fed.
I've seen no proof the Fed killed JFK.
At least you're learning about some of your errors.

I never said the Fed killed Kennedy, but the powers behind them did.

Lets do it this way bud. Disprove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Alright I was wrong and it was not repealed at all, and is still an active executive order. I am man enough to admit when wrong.

For you to read in regards to Kennedy's stand on the Fed and the printing of the silver certificates you can follow the link. Btw, I seem to be the only one of us that submits any proof in regards to this matter. If you cannot than back into the hamster cage with you.

John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X

You offered no proof the EO would end the Fed.
I've seen no proof the Fed killed JFK.
At least you're learning about some of your errors.

I never said the Fed killed Kennedy, but the powers behind them did.

Lets do it this way bud. Disprove it.

The powers behind the Fed?
You mean Congress?
Yeah, I'll disprove your silly conspiracy.
Pass me the weed first.

 

[Stashman]

You offered no proof the EO would end the Fed.
I've seen no proof the Fed killed JFK.
At least you're learning about some of your errors.

I never said the Fed killed Kennedy, but the powers behind them did.

Lets do it this way bud. Disprove it.

The powers behind the Fed?
You mean Congress?
Yeah, I'll disprove your silly conspiracy.
Pass me the weed first.

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said the Fed killed Kennedy, but the powers behind them did.

Lets do it this way bud. Disprove it.

The powers behind the Fed?
You mean Congress?
Yeah, I'll disprove your silly conspiracy.
Pass me the weed first.

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress.
Why does printing silver certificates threaten the existence of the Fed or the evil bankers behind them? Spell it out.

Don't bogart that joint!

 

[konkon]

Triggers to make further proposed cuts to defense! Congressional members are showing us which masters they're bowing to! The transformation of power continues...

 

[editec]

The powers behind the Fed?
You mean Congress?
Yeah, I'll disprove your silly conspiracy.
Pass me the weed first.

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress.
Why does printing silver certificates threaten the existence of the Fed or the evil bankers behind them? Spell it out.

Don't bogart that joint!

Because, the BANSTERS would not be the people printing silver certificates, Todd.

Silver Certificates would have been issued by the TREASURY. not the FED

The BANSTERS control the FED which floods the money supply with FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES that are backed by nothing.

Those would be the greenbacks that are NOT backed by silver.

That is why some people wonder if the FED had Kennedy murdered in Dallas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress.
Why does printing silver certificates threaten the existence of the Fed or the evil bankers behind them? Spell it out.

Don't bogart that joint!

Because, the BANSTERS would not be the people printing silver certificates, Todd.

Silver Certificates would have been issued by the TREASURY. not the FED

So what? Banks can accept silver certificate deposits and still make loans.

The BANSTERS control the FED which floods the money supply with FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES that are backed by nothing.

Those would be the greenbacks that are NOT backed by silver.

Again, so what?
The Fed still exists. The Fed can still add or subtract from the money supply.

That is why some people wonder if the FED had Kennedy murdered in Dallas.

Yeah, some idiots believe lots of stupid shit.

 

[konkon]

There seems to be a lot of behind-the-scenes goings-on, here!!

This can't be ignored! Christine Lagarde, is to me, a US backed chief (a position that was traditionally a dominantly European friendly organization), that appears to be targeted by Europeans (perhaps the EU).

IMF head to be investigated over abuse of power | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 04.08.2011

"The head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, has come under suspicion for abuse of power. A French court ruled she should be investigated for her role in settling a financial dispute while she was France's finance minister." from the above article.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the previous Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund had popular support amongst the financial and political community in France and Europe, in general. His ousting of head of the IMF for alleged sexual assault charges would have disappointed a lot in Europe.

Just seems as though there's a real fight for control of the IMF here, and the fight isn't restricted to just bankers! A lot of covert stuff going on, and I think it's well known within those circles, although the rest of us have to put up with @#$%%^% stories on how congress, for example, really wants to solve this debt crisis, 24-7!!

The IMF and World Bank, for example, are important pieces on the chess board, and the US should gain 'control' of them!! I also heard a while back that Hillary Clinton was destined for the top job at the World Bank. But that must have been a rumor only, I guess.

 

[konkon]

As for the market tanking today, and performing badly over the past couple of weeks, well, don't believe those dickhead Wall Street brokers too much. They still don't get what is causing most of these problems! There may come a time (not yet, and we're probably years away from this possibility; although it's becoming highly likely) where the issuance of more debt itself WILL NOT be enough to solve even the most basic of problems, or to pay for the most basic of things. Then you might find countries going for harder assets, like another country's state-owned assets, for example. This might be the biggest catastrophe we might face, post WWII, but let's hope we don't go there!

 

[konkon]

Here is an interesting article from Bloomberg:

"British Companies Trading With Iran Hidden by U.K. to Avert U.S. Sanctions"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...sanctions.html

"The U.K. government is determined to keep secret British companies that applied to sell goods with potential military uses to Iran, saying international banks are under U.S. pressure to drop them as clients.

The disclosure of the companies may result in them losing access to bank services, Britain’s Export Control Organization said in reply to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News.

President Barack Obama signed a law almost a year ago broadening the scope of sanctions against Iran to stunt its nuclear development program. Even before then, U.K. banks were cutting off customers with links to Iran to avoid being targeted by American authorities or losing permits to do business in the U.S., said the export agency, which issues licenses to ship supplies with dual military or civilian uses, as well as torture equipment and radioactive material to other countries." from the Bloomberg article above.

I added the bits in bold just to emphasize the point that international banking organizations must see the US as a barrier to do more trade and to make more money. Without the US watchdog service we're pretty much #$%@#%ed! The public should get behind the push to keep all defense services strong. Actually, there's no push at the moment. Cuts are being blueprinted.

Bloomberg is doing us a real service and I will watch more of their programs. Well done! How about you guys now do a story on what defense cutting will mean in the long run!

 

[editec]

There is not now nor has there been since Kennedy a time when U.S. Government fought against the bankster elites. In the time of Kennedy it wasn't the government fighting against them but Kennedy himself. We all saw what that led too.

I am glad that you have posted this topic because it is the biggest topic of them all. The international banks took control over our monetary system in 1913 with the formation of the Federal Reserve. It is solely owned and operated without any government oversight by private bankers. It is, and was formed to be a banking cartel. There are NO elected government officials in its employ, and no FED employee works for the American government.

The Fed prints our currency out of thin air than loans it at interest to the government. Our government has never been able to repay these loans due to their high interest rates, so in order to pay them they go back to the Fed for another loan at interest and so on and so on. Each time the Fed prints currency it devalues the money that's already out there. Right now because of this the American dollar is worth 4 cents compared to what it was in 1913 just prior to the Federal Reserve Act. If our money would of held its value since than, than today our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00.

These bankers after doing this have accumulated massive power and resources. The began to buy up politicians, cooperation's, and the companies that comprise up the industrial military complex.

Throughout our history we have had 5 presidents go against the central banking cartels.
Andrew Jackson fought against and won against the central bank that was than in the United States. They tried to assassinate him, but were not successful. Garfield and McKinley also spoke out against the Fed and were killed. Lincoln after borrowing money from them to finance the civil war was appalled by the outrageous interest we would have to pay back. He decided to that we should print our own debt free money called "Greenbacks". For this he was killed. JFK had written executive order 11110 that would end the Fed and began the creation of debt free U.S. Dollars. He too was assassinated.

Since than we have not had a true American patriot willing to go against the Fed other than Ron Paul. He has been saying we should end the Fed for two decades now.

Ron Paul2012

Yes EXEC order 11110 and the subsequent assassination of JFK is one of those coincidences that is just so perfectly coincidently that it boggles the mind, isn't it?


By signing that JFK was challenging the EXCLUISIVE authority of the FEDERAL RESERVE to control the money supply.

And then shortly thereafter, he was killed with a MAGIC BULLET?!?

That event stinks to high heaven.

It has ALWAYS stunk to high heaven.

I have no narrative, no comprehenisve conspiracy theory to explain it, but one thing I am rather convinced of is that LHO was NOT acting ALONE.

After the Treasury issues all the silver certificates to cover all the silver the government held, what happens?

The Fed still exists. The Fed still buys and sells Treasuries.

E.O. 11110 doesn't change that. How long until it was repealed?

FWIW I am informed that EO 11110 was never implemented and shortly thereafter JFK was killed the USA sold off the majority of its silver (apparently the amount was rather vast like over a billion ounces?).

I am also informed tha EX 11110 lay fallow during the Johnson and Nixon years and was quietly revoked (quashed? not sure what word applies) during the FORD administration.

Obviously if the Treasure was issuing Silver certificates and the FED was not we'd have had two COMPETING currencies, one that would have appealed to the people much more than the other.

AND THAT is a direct challenge to the FEDs control of the specie.

I mean if you could get a dollar that would give you coin silver upon request or one that you could not redeem for silver coin, which would you rather have?

And then I read THIS and ask myself what the real story is

For decades, the Treasury had been a net buyer of silver. By 1960, it had become a net seller. In 1960, the Treasury sold 22 million ounces of silver in bullion form, and used another 46 million ounces in coinage. The next year the Treasury had to sell 63 million ounces of bullion and use another 56 million ounces to replace silver coins that had been taken out of circulation by investors. That year, 1961, the Treasury realized that it would run out of silver for use in coinage and as a reserve against silver certificates unless it took drastic measures to begin phasing silver out of currency. In 1961, the Treasury ordered $5 and $10 silver certificates out of circulation, freeing silver reserves held against these bills and reducing the public’s call on Treasury silver. In November 1961 the government also suspended silver bullion sales by the Treasury at the formerly fixed price of 91 cents.

Once the Treasury stopped selling at that price, market quotes for silver quickly rose. In June 1963 the Treasury also replaced the $1 silver certificate with Federal Reserve notes. By 1963, silver prices reached $1.29, the monetary value of silver in coinage. At prices above this level, holders of silver certificates would have been able to redeem them for more valuable silver, under the now-defunct silver certificate legislation. (The other trigger price the Treasury worried about was $1.38, at which level it was profitable to recycle coinage for its silver content.)

During this transition period, the U.S. Treasury still had to keep the silver market well supplied, in order to keep the silver market relatively calm until it had completed the withdrawal of silver form its currency. In late 1963 the Treasury resumed its silver bullion sales, as part of this effort. Over the six years between 1960 and 1965, the Treasury sold a total of 342 million ounces of silver bullion. It used another 814 million ounces of silver in coinage during this same time. In total, the Treasury used 1,156,000,000 ounces of its silver reserves. Much of this silver, especially the bulk of it used in coins, found its way quickly into the hands of investors. Government steps to remove silver from the currency led investors to conclude that the price of silver would rise sharply once the Treasury no longer was supplying the market with such large volumes of the metal.

Fabrication demand continued to rise sharply. Industrial use, excluding coinage, rose at a 9 percent per annum pace, from 212.9 million ounces in 1959 to 355.8 million ounces in 1965. Including coinage, which grew rapidly during this same time due to the investor run on coins, total fabrication demand rose 16% per annum. Mine production, in contrast rose only 1.9% per year from 195.6 million ounces in 1959 to 218.4 million ounces in 1965.

Secondary recovery of silver was starting to expand, in part spurred by the realization that with the passing of Treasury silver sales and coinage programs the market would need to recover increasing amounts of silver from scrapped items. It was clear to market participants that silver prices had been restrained by the Treasury’s willingness to fill the gap between market supplies and industrial demand, and that once the Treasury’s silver was gone, additional supplies would have to be found elsewhere. Coin melt rose from 10 million ounces in 1960 to 30 million ounces in 1965. Silver recycling from other items rose from 40 million ounces in 1960 to 57 million ounces in 1965.

source

 

[expat_panama]

...if you could get a dollar that would give you coin silver upon request or one that you could not redeem for silver coin, which would you rather have?...

That choice does not exist because we already can exchange our dollars for silver coins as easily as we exchange dollars for food. The reason we stopped using silver coins for money was precious metal prices are volatile and a silver coin that bought ten loaves of bread one day could only buy 8 the next. We fixed that and now food prices are stable.

 

[konkon]

Just need to reemphasize a point here: the US defense networks will need to put their 'own people' (with appropriate qualifications, contacts/networks, expertise etc) in leadership roles, within the shadowy groups (heads of many of these organizations). This is part of what I meant by suggesting the US will target many shadowy groups.

Hey this is my opinion here, and you won't find it covered on CNN, for example: Seems to me that shadowy groups are accelerating their efforts to transfer power from USA this past week! It's as if they've been caught-out and are speeding things up a little! The S&P rating agency picked an extremely odd, difficult and sensitive time to downgrade the US.

It's also interesting to note the number of countries that are lining up to push for another reserve currency. China, Russia and the Philippines (who cares!) are three that have done so in the past few days.

Here's the annoying bit: China, for example, has had a free ride with the USD for a long time, which has meant that China has unfair trading advantages over the world. A country that makes bloggers that criticize it, for example, disappear (which is why I will never go there!), wants to criticize the US even though China has never paid a premium for its concessions over the years.

I think that those countries that are quick out of the gate to push for the US's downfall, by wanting the USD to falter and by reinforcing the downgrade, should be looked at carefully. They are clearly not gong to support a US-led initiative to protect the world from potentially irreversible harm in the future (preventing countries like Iran from getting really aggressive, for example).

All those that want to criticize US defense initiatives of all kinds, especially those in Asia, who will protect the world from potential chaos if the US loses it's grip on geopolitical dynamics, and the world becomes an open place for all sorts of escalating and conflicting agendas?

China stockpiling of all kinds of resources (that are clearly not being used to make toys in factories) is really beginning to make a lot of sense now! Weren't zi Germans (not criticizing Germans now-days!) doing similar things prior to WWI and WWII? A real concern for anyone living in Asia, if you ask me. So get behind the US and don't be narrow-minded opportunists that see fragmented distributions of wealth as the new norm. The push for alternative currencies and leadership power distribution, will inevitable lead to an unsafe world, if the US and all its (real!) allies aren't properly supported by the rest of us.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...all those powerful corporate and banking executives and co. that want to control the world...

Before we go any further, safely concerns require proper mind control protection from powerful corporate and banking executives and co. that want to control the world. These need to be posted:

I do like this post a lot, even though I think it's being critical of the point that many make that banksters (thanks editec!) and co. want to control the world. And that doesn't matter really, as it's always good to get feedback.

I also think there is an interesting Napoleonic reference with the formation of the tin foil hat. I'm sure Napoleon was embroiled in some form of bankster dilemma, at a different level to the ones mentioned today.

Now, where is our tin foil kept!

Yeah, he was running into funding problems with his war machine. Selling Louisiana enabled him to get his war on with Britain.

 

[MELenns]

Yo All,
This discussion is pretty much over my head.

But what would happen if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Military were to take a freshly printed $14.3 trillion dollar bill to the IMF/World Bank and say: "Here, divvie this up amidst and amongst our creditors so as to pay off our debt. And if anyone want to complain, send them to see me, and my squad of Navy Seals on the football field at West Point."?

You think anyone would complain?

MEL

 

[Stashman]

The powers behind the Fed?
You mean Congress?
Yeah, I'll disprove your silly conspiracy.
Pass me the weed first.

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress.
Why does printing silver certificates threaten the existence of the Fed or the evil bankers behind them? Spell it out.

Don't bogart that joint!

Because the silver certificates were worth their denominations and not penny's like our Fed notes are. Over time this would of became the chosen currency by the American public, and that would of ended the Fed in the long run. To have stopped printing Federal notes all at once would of been a disaster, so slowly phasing them in was the smarter move.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

International banking cartels are behind the Fed, not congress.
It seems you are a spinning wheel and just want to keep issues going nowhere. It's like your afraid of the truth because than you will have to admit that you do not live in sunshine and lollipop land.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress.
Why does printing silver certificates threaten the existence of the Fed or the evil bankers behind them? Spell it out.

Don't bogart that joint!

Because the silver certificates were worth their denominations and not penny's like our Fed notes are. Over time this would of became the chosen currency by the American public, and that would of ended the Fed in the long run. To have stopped printing Federal notes all at once would of been a disaster, so slowly phasing them in was the smarter move.

Sorry, they were both worth face value of the bill, no more, no less.

Not enough silver to replace all the FRNs and that still wouldn't have ended the Fed.

 

[konkon]

Yo All,
This discussion is pretty much over my head.

But what would happen if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Military were to take a freshly printed $14.3 trillion dollar bill to the IMF/World Bank and say: "Here, divvie this up amidst and amongst our creditors so as to pay off our debt. And if anyone want to complain, send them to see me, and my squad of Navy Seals on the football field at West Point."?

You think anyone would complain?

MEL

Probably.

I think the military and defense forces have a more important role to play internally and of course externally.

I personally see the GFC as a time for many countries around the world to support the US and its allies' efforts to protect us from potential major global conflicts in the future. WWI and WWII were inevitable because (amongst many technical and historical reasons) you didn't have a global superpower to oversee all parts of the world and focus in on the troubled parts; this is what the US does. And not just some parts like a potential next superpower (ie. China) might focus on.

If China, for example, overtook the US's geopolitical role, China might do this fragmentedly, but there would be some serious gaps in perhaps some precarious parts of the world. There may not be a country with the will, resources etc, like the US, to take the necessary actions if (in the future) serous conflicts were brewing in some parts of the world. Without the US and its allies in control (and of course it's very difficult at times), you might have many countries in different parts of the world, at different times, go for the top dog position.

Congress is a different problem altogether. I don't think congress should have as much power as they do, personally. They should perhaps spend endless amounts of time debating what the next postal stamp should look like, for example. But congress, and there are other organizations, like some media outlets, should not have such an important gatekeeper role. As for deciding on really important issues. I think the people in general can do this without needing to be parented by their local constituents.

But I also believe (and I am not that patriotic myself, I admit) that the military and of course the President (and his team) should have a greater influence in matters internal and abroad, without being sidetracked by gatekeepers like congress and media outlets (who seem to be serving other masters).

One of the reasons why I know we will need defense agencies of all kinds to protect us, is because of the potential fragmented protective framework and the possible dangers that may arise, if we didn't have the US, for example, to oversee geopolitics on a global (and not a fragmented) scale.

In other words, ask yourself why there was never a WWIII, and the answer has to be because the US and its allies (and there are plenty) kept on preventing this from ever happening. Now ask yourself what a world without global oversight would look like.

Now I probably wouldn't last three days in a military training camp, for example, and I'd probably get beaten up because I'm probably too annoying. But I'm sure glad that I can live a relatively comfortable life not worrying about serous global threats every ten minutes; I'm thinking of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men here and what he said to Tom Cruise while they were having lunch outdoors. Only Nicholson could pull that off like that!