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

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
10,870
Reaction score
3,673
Points
390
Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


The US Constitution never granted the federal government authority to create a central bank. The Founders, having lived through hyperinflation themselves, understood that government should never have a printing press at its disposal. But from the very beginning of America’s founding, the desire for a crony central bank was strong.

In fact, two attempts were made at creating a permanent central bank in America prior to the creation of the Fed. Fortunately, the charter for The First Bank was allowed to expire in 1811, and President Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank in 1833.

But, unfortunately, a third attempt was successful and the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally created by Congress in 1913. Americans have been living under a corrupt and immoral monetary system ever since. The Federal Reserve is the printing press that has financed the creation of the largest government to ever exist. Endless welfare and endless military spending are both made possible by the Federal Reserve. The Fed can just print the money for whatever the US establishment wants, so those of us who long for a Constitutional and limited government have few tools at our disposal.

Despite all the propaganda claiming “independence,” the Fed has always been a deeply political institution. Because the Fed is a government-created monopoly with key government-appointed employees, its so-called “independence” is a mere fiction. However, the US Congress created the Fed with legislation; it can also abolish the Fed with legislation.

Last week, the facade of Federal Reserve “independence” was dealt a severe blow. Ironically, the person who broadcast to the world that the Fed is anything but “independent” was ex-New York Fed President Bill Dudley. Dudley wrote that, “Trump’s re-election arguably presents a threat to the United States’ and global economy, and if the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, the Fed’s officials should consider how their decisions would affect the political outcome of 2020.”

The timing of Dudley’s threats to use Fed monetary policy to affect the outcome of a US election couldn’t come at a more striking time. After all, for more than two solid years Americans have been bombarded with fabricated stories about Russians rigging our elections. And yet here is a Federal Reserve official threatening to do the same exact thing - but this time for real!

Whether it’s the mainstream media, the CIA, the FBI, or now the Federal Reserve, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that there is a Deep State in America and its interests have nothing to do with American liberty. In fact, our liberty is what the Deep State wants to abolish.


When it comes to the Federal Reserve, I stand firmly by my conviction that it needs to be audited and then ended as soon as possible.

America’s Founders were not perfect. They were human beings just as capable of error as we are. But they had a remarkable understanding of the ideas of liberty. They understood that liberty cannot exist with a government that has access to a printing press. Sound money and liberty go hand-in-hand. If we want to enjoy the blessings of Liberty, we must audit and then end the Federal Reserve!

Source - Forget the Russians: It’s the Federal Reserve Seeking to Meddle in Our Elections - written by Ron Paul Monday September 2, 2019


Emphasis is mine.
 
Last edited:

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


The US Constitution never granted the federal government authority to create a central bank. The Founders, having lived through hyperinflation themselves, understood that government should never have a printing press at its disposal. But from the very beginning of America’s founding, the desire for a crony central bank was strong.

In fact, two attempts were made at creating a permanent central bank in America prior to the creation of the Fed. Fortunately, the charter for The First Bank was allowed to expire in 1811, and President Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank in 1833.

But, unfortunately, a third attempt was successful and the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally created by Congress in 1913. Americans have been living under a corrupt and immoral monetary system ever since. The Federal Reserve is the printing press that has financed the creation of the largest government to ever exist. Endless welfare and endless military spending are both made possible by the Federal Reserve. The Fed can just print the money for whatever the US establishment wants, so those of us who long for a Constitutional and limited government have few tools at our disposal.

Despite all the propaganda claiming “independence,” the Fed has always been a deeply political institution. Because the Fed is a government-created monopoly with key government-appointed employees, its so-called “independence” is a mere fiction. However, the US Congress created the Fed with legislation; it can also abolish the Fed with legislation.

Last week, the facade of Federal Reserve “independence” was dealt a severe blow. Ironically, the person who broadcast to the world that the Fed is anything but “independent” was ex-New York Fed President Bill Dudley. Dudley wrote that, “Trump’s re-election arguably presents a threat to the United States’ and global economy, and if the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, the Fed’s officials should consider how their decisions would affect the political outcome of 2020.”

The timing of Dudley’s threats to use Fed monetary policy to affect the outcome of a US election couldn’t come at a more striking time. After all, for more than two solid years Americans have been bombarded with fabricated stories about Russians rigging our elections. And yet here is a Federal Reserve official threatening to do the same exact thing - but this time for real!

Whether it’s the mainstream media, the CIA, the FBI, or now the Federal Reserve, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that there is a Deep State in America and its interests have nothing to do with American liberty. In fact, our liberty is what the Deep State wants to abolish.


When it comes to the Federal Reserve, I stand firmly by my conviction that it needs to be audited and then ended as soon as possible.

America’s Founders were not perfect. They were human beings just as capable of error as we are. But they had a remarkable understanding of the ideas of liberty. They understood that liberty cannot exist with a government that has access to a printing press. Sound money and liberty go hand-in-hand. If we want to enjoy the blessings of Liberty, we must audit and then end the Federal Reserve!

Source - Forget the Russians: It’s the Federal Reserve Seeking to Meddle in Our Elections - written by Ron Paul Monday September 2, 2019


Emphasis is mine.
If the Founders didn't want a central bank, why did they create the Bank of the United States only 3 years after the Constitution went into force?
 
OP
Natural Citizen

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
10,870
Reaction score
3,673
Points
390
If the Founders didn't want a central bank, why did they create the Bank of the United States only 3 years after the Constitution went into force?
That was the statist Hamilton's doing.

Hamilton's bank proposal faced widespread resistance from opponents of increased federal power. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the opposition, which claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it benefited merchants and investors at the expense of the majority of the population.

Like most of the Southern members of Congress, Jefferson and Madison also opposed a second of the three proposals of Hamilton: establishing an official government Mint. They believed this centralization of power away from local banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests, arguing that the right to own property would be infringed by these proposals. Furthermore, they contended that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which specifically stated that Congress was to regulate weights and measures and issue coined money (rather than mint and bills of credit)

Here - First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia

Hamilton should have been hanged.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,185
Reaction score
8,762
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
If the Founders didn't want a central bank, why did they create the Bank of the United States only 3 years after the Constitution went into force?
That was the statist Hamilton's doing.

Hamilton's bank proposal faced widespread resistance from opponents of increased federal power. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the opposition, which claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it benefited merchants and investors at the expense of the majority of the population.

Like most of the Southern members of Congress, Jefferson and Madison also opposed a second of the three proposals of Hamilton: establishing an official government Mint. They believed this centralization of power away from local banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests, arguing that the right to own property would be infringed by these proposals. Furthermore, they contended that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which specifically stated that Congress was to regulate weights and measures and issue coined money (rather than mint and bills of credit)

Here - First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia

Hamilton should have been hanged.
That was the statist Hamilton's doing.

Washington signed it into law.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
If the Founders didn't want a central bank, why did they create the Bank of the United States only 3 years after the Constitution went into force?
That was the statist Hamilton's doing.

Hamilton's bank proposal faced widespread resistance from opponents of increased federal power. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the opposition, which claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it benefited merchants and investors at the expense of the majority of the population.

Like most of the Southern members of Congress, Jefferson and Madison also opposed a second of the three proposals of Hamilton: establishing an official government Mint. They believed this centralization of power away from local banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests, arguing that the right to own property would be infringed by these proposals. Furthermore, they contended that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which specifically stated that Congress was to regulate weights and measures and issue coined money (rather than mint and bills of credit)

Here - First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia

Hamilton should have been hanged.
Hamilton was a founding father. And far from hanging him, the founders helped him create a central bank, creating the first one in 1792. George Washington was still in his first term....who signed central banking into law.

That's how OG central banking is.

Seems you and the founders had a very different idea of both Hamilton and Central Banks.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
My bad. The bill authorizing the first bank of the United States was passed less than 2 years after the constitution went into effect.

It was a piece of legislation in the FIRST session of congress. It doesn't get anymore OG than this.

And it wasn't even particularly controversial either. It passed with comic ease, with those in favor outnumbering those opposed by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1

The Founders CLEARLY supported central banking.
 
OP
Natural Citizen

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
10,870
Reaction score
3,673
Points
390
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.
 
Last edited:

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
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.
Don't be an asshole. We can have a civil discussion on the topic.

And the thing to remember is that Washington AGREED with Hamilton. As did the the founding fathers by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1.

And who cares if the 'Mises Institute' likes central banking. I trust the founders judgment on the matter far more than I do some Austrian and his acolytes.

The founders clearly supported central banking. It was passed in the first session of congress, in Washington's first term, less than 2 years after constitution went into effect. Washington wasn't 'tricked'. Hamilton and Jefferson offered their opposing views on the matter. And Washington, like 2/3rds of the founders who voted on the matter, agreed with Hamilton.

So do I.
 
OP
Natural Citizen

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
10,870
Reaction score
3,673
Points
390
Speaking of Hamilton, here's a great book about the tyrant.

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today

From the description...

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton--two of the most influential Founding Fathers--were also fierce rivals with two opposing political philosophies and two radically different visions for America.

While Jefferson is better remembered today, it is actually Hamilton’s political legacy that has triumphed--a legacy that has subverted the Constitution and transformed the federal government into the very leviathan state that our forefathers fought against in the American Revolution. How did we go from the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government to the bloated imperialist system of Hamilton’s design? Acclaimed economic historian, Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveals how Hamilton, first as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later as the nation’s first and most influential treasury secretary, masterfully promoted an agenda of nationalist glory and interventionist economics. These core beliefs did not die with Hamilton in his fatal duel with Aaron Burr, but were carried on through his political heirs.

The Hamiltonian legacy wrested control into the hands of the federal government by inventing the myth of the Constitution’s “implied powers, transforming state governments from Jeffersonian bulwarks of liberty to beggars for federal crumbs. It also devised a national banking system that imposes boom-and-bust cycles on the American economy; saddled Americans with a massive national debt and oppressive taxation, and pushed economic policies that lined the pockets of the wealthy and created a government system built on graft, spoils, and patronage.

By debunking the Hamiltonian myths, DiLorenzo exposes an uncomfortable truth: the American people are no longer the masters of their government but its servants. Only by restoring a system based on Jeffersonian ideals can Hamilton’s curse be lifted, at last.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
Speaking of Hamilton, here's a great book about the tyrant.

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today

From the description...

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton--two of the most influential Founding Fathers--were also fierce rivals with two opposing political philosophies and two radically different visions for America.

While Jefferson is better remembered today, it is actually Hamilton’s political legacy that has triumphed--a legacy that has subverted the Constitution and transformed the federal government into the very leviathan state that our forefathers fought against in the American Revolution. How did we go from the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government to the bloated imperialist system of Hamilton’s design? Acclaimed economic historian, Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveals how Hamilton, first as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later as the nation’s first and most influential treasury secretary, masterfully promoted an agenda of nationalist glory and interventionist economics. These core beliefs did not die with Hamilton in his fatal duel with Aaron Burr, but were carried on through his political heirs.

The Hamiltonian legacy wrested control into the hands of the federal government by inventing the myth of the Constitution’s “implied powers, transforming state governments from Jeffersonian bulwarks of liberty to beggars for federal crumbs. It also devised a national banking system that imposes boom-and-bust cycles on the American economy; saddled Americans with a massive national debt and oppressive taxation, and pushed economic policies that lined the pockets of the wealthy and created a government system built on graft, spoils, and patronage.

By debunking the Hamiltonian myths, DiLorenzo exposes an uncomfortable truth: the American people are no longer the masters of their government but its servants. Only by restoring a system based on Jeffersonian ideals can Hamilton’s curse be lifted, at last.

You don't like Hamilton. So?

The founders clearly trusted his judgment. Washington trusted his judgment. And the founders voted nearly 2 to 1 in favor central banking after Hamilton convinced them.

Just obliterating your claim that the founders didn't want a central bank. The contrary, the founders wanted a central bank so badly, they created in the first session of congress, less than 2 years after the Constitution went into effect.

You disagree with the founders. Again, so?

You have yet to convince me why I should ignore the judgment of the founders and instead override it with your personal opinion. Or Ludwig's.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,185
Reaction score
8,762
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
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.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,185
Reaction score
8,762
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,811
Reaction score
11,520
Points
2,030
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.
At first, even washington didnt know about it. He ultimately sided with the biggest statist founder we had. He was also the first lobbyist. Debatable of course.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,811
Reaction score
11,520
Points
2,030
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.
Many founders were against this. So I'm not sure where your sarcasm comes from.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,185
Reaction score
8,762
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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.
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...…..
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top