Ron Paul: 2012 Presidential Candidate Says Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank

The Federal Reserve Bank
The Federal Reserve Bank | Source

2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank - Another "Nutty: Proposal?

2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank - is this just another one of his "nutty" proposals? Was the congress of 1811 "nutty" for abolishing the first U.S. Central Bank by refusing to renew its charter? Was president Jackson "nutty" when he effectively abolished the Second US Central bank by closing the U.S. account in it? Both of these actions arose from both actual and feared concerns that a Central U.S. Bank held too much control over the U.S. economy and government policies.

Did the almost trillion dollar T.A.R.P. bailout program worry you? Well, did you know the FED did essentially the same thing, but to the tune of $1.25 trillion dollars over six weeks? And would not reveal the details to the public of how it spent that money, and could not be required by current law to do so, did you know that?

So is Congressman Paul's call to abolish the FED just another of his lunatic ideas that are too draconian to seriously consider? History doesn't think so. Other political candidates and politicians don't think so. And fiscal conservatives certainly should not think so. Perhaps it is only those that believe in "Keynesian" economics that think he's a fruitcake for this proposal.

What is The Federal Reserve Bank

In layman's terms, the Federal Reserve Banking System is the U.S. government's and the U.S. commercial banking system's bank. Its responsibilities and authorities can be generally described as:

"...to maintain employment, keep prices stable, and keep interest rates at a moderate level by regulating monetary policy. Components of the Federal Reserve System also supervise banks, provide financial services, and conduct research on the United States economy and the economies in the surrounding region."

Of course the details and mechanisms are much more complicated. Some are very specific, and others are vague and general in nature. To delve deeper into the exact nature and functions of the FED, Wikipedia has an excellent page - The Federal Reserve System

Why does Ron Paul want to abolish the FED

Presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to abolish the FED because he thinks it has; failed in its responsibilities, is outside the control of American citizens and their government, and serves the interests of the banks above the interest of the nation, re: $1.25 trillion tarp-type bailouts to financial institutions without government approval or oversight. Specifically, it has taken lawsuits and legislation to force the FED to offer even as general an explanation of its actions as holding a press conference.

Did you know that The Federal Reserve is not an agency or part of the U.S. government, it is actually a privately owned corporation, owned by a group of international bankers? That sounds much more sinister than it really is, the president and congress do have the power of confirmation of its board of governors, but it is essentially an accurate description of the FED as an entity. Is Ron Paul a nut for even thinking this isn't the way our economy should be controlled?

The FED has been under attack for quite awhile from strict fiscal conservatives and Constitutionalists, so this is not a new issue. But the current economic crisis, Ron Paul, and the focus on the FED-Tarp-Bailout of banking/investment houses has once again made it a current issue. Trading $1.25 trillion of U.S. government backed Treasury notes for troubled mortgage and securities backed assets, without transparency or accountability is not conducive to trust. Even worse, the government T.A.R.P. bailouts were loans meant to be repaid, the FED-Tarp was an outright swap - none of the involved entities have to come back and redeem those troubled assets.

But do these concerns merit abolishing the entire institution? A quick research scan found almost five million anti-FED results, (you can find almost as many on the sex life of toads), but this article is not intended to delve into the deeper details for or against the idea, instead it is to explore the assertion that it is just another of Ron Paul's nutty ideas.

You can see specific charges against the FED at abolishthefederalreserve.org - BUT A CAUTION - this is obviously a biased presentation, you will see the nuts-and-bolts facts, examples, and reasoning for abolishing the FED, but in a very slanted context. So just look for the factual details, and judge the presentation by your own leanings and intelligence.

Also, the video below is Ron Paul at a CATO sponsored banking and investment gathering - you can hear his reasons from the horse's mouth. (it is lengthy, but worth the time if you want to know what Paul actually says - not what the media and his opponents say he says)

Congressman Ron Paul's Reasons to Abolish The Federal Banking System

Counterpoint to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's Assertions

Although there are very valid reasons and instances of behavior that strongly support the anti-FED positions, after all sometimes facts remain facts no matter how contorted they are presented, there are also some very valid reasons supporting the need for the FED's existence and argue reform is the measure needed - instead of abolishing it entirely.

The easy to understand pro-FED arguments:

  • Twisted and biased presentation of facts distort the truth
  • the FED does return all of its profits to the U.S. Treasury - to the tune of about $79 billion in 2009.

The harder to quantify reasons the FED is needed:

  • Our economy isn't the one of the 1800's - it could not work, nationally or globally with 1000's of different currencies
  • Given the current faith in the U.S. Government, and its track record of successes - do you want it to have complete control of our economic functions - which is essentially what the FED does, supposedly in conjunction with government oversight?

Is reform of the FED a better option, and Ron Paul's position just another nutty extremism? Or is the very structure of the FED the problem, and Ron Paul is right?

See more GA Anderson Political articles

GA Anderson aka Gus
GA Anderson aka Gus | Source

About the Author

Writing for the Daily Constitutional, and commentary from the Curmudgeon's desk - GA Anderson

"Seeing it does not make it real, and reading it does not make it true. Use a little common-sense and trust your instincts." - GAA

*Composite image component source citations: Creative Commons images from:commons.wikimedia.org, flickr.com/creativecommons, search.creativecommons.org, http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/06/find-creative-commons-images-in-google.html. *photo and image source credits: divider and separation images - http://gaanderson.hubpages.com

More by this Author


Ron Paul: 2012 Presidential Candidate Says Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank Comments 23 comments

Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

GA, There is a great deal to be learned by yours truly as to the nature of the FED entity. Who are the strongest advocates ideologically on maintaining it there and why? The way you and Dr. Paul describe it, it sounds like an imposition on our autonomy in the economic sphere. Is it no wonder Andy Jackson railed so much against a similar concept during his term. Thanks for infomring us all


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@credence2 - thanks once more for dropping by.

as I am almost never an advocate of all or nothing propositions, before other possible actions are tried first, I'm not sure I agree with Paul, possibly but not sure.

I do believe we at least need an entity to perform similar functions, as they say... in this day and age. But I too need to give it more thought.

GA


Chris Kross profile image

Chris Kross 4 years ago from Dallas, TX

We wouldn't need 1,000s of competing currencies. We just need one currency - standardized and controlled by Congress, as opposed to private international bankers.

At least that way the dealings would be out in the open, and we could prevent against inflation.

The Fed was established against the will of the people, through shady congressional practices in 1913, and has since decreased the value of the dollar by about 96%.

I would be fine with ending the Fed, and getting rid of fractional reserve lending altogether. It lends itself to corruption.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Chris - once again, glad to have your thoughts. You make some good points, but...

give me a moment to get over the chuckles. It's not your comment, just the thought of "Congress" and "out in the open" in the same thought. LOL Obviously I am not one of the 9% of people that still trust Congress.

Although I am not a proponent of the Fed, I don't think the dollars decline over almost 100 years can be blamed entirely on them. There are many non-Fed factors involved also. One would be dropping the gold standard. Which I think was necessary.

Yes fractional lending is a problem. One of those good intentions that looked good on paper, but just didn't work as intended when human nature was mixed in.

once again, thanks for the good discussions.

GA


Chris Kross profile image

Chris Kross 4 years ago from Dallas, TX

You honestly don't think the bankers lobbied to remove the gold standard? The economic crisis (caused by war and fractional lending) was just the Trojan horse they needed.

Also, I don't trust Congress - at least not right now, but that's the point. We the people determine who is in Congress. We have no say in who a private company [the Fed] employs.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Chris - thanks again for the visits. Yes, I do believe it was in their interest to drop it, so it doesn't take a leap of faith to imagine them gleefully smiling when it happened.

Trust Congress?? There you go joking again. LOL

We have very serious issues with the Fed's global positions right now, not just their behavior. I don't think many folks understand that, whether we like it or not, our financial structure is chained to much of Europe's economic issues. And that is due to Fed actions/involvements

GA


Chris Kross profile image

Chris Kross 4 years ago from Dallas, TX

No doubt they're moving toward a world bank/international central bank. I also have no doubt that ending the Fed would be painful at first.

I'm a realist. Congress has never been trustworthy in our history, and I know that will never change. That being said, am I wrong for hoping that this awakening will continue?

Congress may never issue our money. Maybe it's better that way. Am I wrong for believing that we can get enough good men into Congress to make a difference, though?

I'm not taking this lying down anymore. Ron Paul cured my apathy :)


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Chris - nope, you are not wrong - now all we have to do is convince another 40 or 50 million voters to pay attention.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Very interesting. Dr. Paul has my support. Please continue to spread the word. I will, too.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lone77star, thanks for reading "Ron Paul: 2012 Presidential Candidate Says Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank," and thanks for the comment.

When it comes to Ron Paul, you either love him or think he's a kook. Too bad. I think he has a lot of good and valid points. But a few unworkable ones also.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

You said in your article of the fact that the Fed has international owners, "That sounds much more sinister than it really is."

But is it not so sinister? Really? I guess it would depend upon the character of the international owners.

The fact that the "president and congress do have the power of confirmation of its board of governors" may well be a false "security blanket." Why?

Those board of governors and its chairman are likely selected from a very small pool of individuals. Would the owners of the Fed have any influence over the contents of that pool? Could the owners of the Fed, with their billions (trillions?) of dollars possibly influence congress and the president over the confirmation of the Fed's members? And could the board of governors be beholding to the owners and not the people or government of the United States? Without congressional oversight, the Fed can do anything it wants. But even if Congress did have oversight, the Fed could still lie. For instance, how can we verify that their "profits" are what they say they are?

If the owners of the Fed are good, honest and fair-minded people, then we have nothing to fear. Nothing sinister at all. But the secrecy they have perpetrated, and the foreign bailouts at the expense of American taxpayers is at least a tiny bit sinister. But with secrecy, there could be a great deal more sinister underneath it all. Secrecy can do that. That's why JFK abhorred secrecy in government. Obama said similar, but then turned his back on what he said -- perpetrating more secrecy and more treachery with NDAA.

Add to that the reflections of the late Aaron Russo, it seems the elitists have a decidedly sinister plan for us all. The Rockefellers expected a big event to allow them to take over Iraq and Afghanistan. That was October, 2000. Eleven months later, they had their excuse -- 9/11. All 3 WTC buildings in New York were brought down by a controlled demolition. I believe the scientists, architects and engineers behind http://AE911truth.org over our government any day. And it would've taken months to prepare all 3 buildings with the necessary explosives and nano-thermite cutters. And Bush's brother was part of the company which had security over WTC!

The fact that the SEC and their investigation into insider trading was in WTC7 is at least a little suspicious. Motive! All that research -- gone. Goldman-Sachs off the hook.

September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admitted to the world that the Defense Dept was missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars. I just learned yesterday that the Pentagon office hit by the "airplane" on 9/11 was the Budget Analysts' Office, the one investigating the missing $2.3 Trillion. How thoroughly convenient for Donald Rumsfeld. I haven't confirmed this tidbit, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were entirely true. The missing $2.3 trillion is now a forgotten footnote. Wow. I wouldn't mind them forgetting a few trillion into my bank account.

The super-rich and their corrupting influence over the behavior of Congress and the president should be cause for extreme concern. Why? Just look at the $15.5 trillion in debt. And it's accelerating. It was sheer madness 10 years ago when it was one-third that size. Now, it's so crazy, everyone is numb. When that bubble bursts, the whole world likely will be scrambling for a solution. And you can bet the people behind it all have one already prepared. It's like cattle to the slaughter.

The same people behind the Fed are teamed with the ones who push for more wars (military-industrial complex). The news media also has conveniently slanted things to protect the agenda of the super-rich.

Conspiracy? Sinister? Why not? It's the sexiest crime in history, being pulled off in broad daylight over a period of two centuries. The change is gradual enough and "logical" enough that normalcy bias takes over. Several million fell into normalcy bias in Nazi Germany and woke up only when it was too late to do anything about it. It may well be too late to do anything about this, except pray. And that may very well be the point of it all.

You see, the Rockefellers plan to have us all microchipped. The news media has been lauding its potential for years. Some corporations already have their employees embedded with microchips. But soon it will be required for buying and selling anything. Then, our free society is gone. And God knew about this over 2000 years ago. Revelation 13 talks all about this "mark of the beast."

The greed is so thick you could cut it with a knife. That's Darth Vader/Hannibal Lector kind of sinister. Yum!


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lonestar - thanks for the visit, and heartfelt comment.

You point out several valid concerns in the section on the Fed - but I'm afraid you lost me on the 9/11 conspiracy issues.

I have been satisfied by the non-government entities that have thoroughly debunked those conspiracy theories. Obviously you will disagree, and should leave it at that.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@GA, on the contrary, I'm interested in truth (at least as close as we can get to it). What chief sources do you have on the "debunked" conspiracy theories? I'd love to check them out.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

Greetings again Lonestar - there are pro's and con's everywhere. From crazy lone bloggers to credible organizations.

I do appreciate your visits and comments, but a conspiracy debate is not one I have the time to research and debate. I'm sure you believe as strongly in the points that have formed your opinion as I am in mine.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Thanks GA for your candid answer, but I thought since you had already researched it, you could share. If you don't remember, that's okay.

But since your certainty about my beliefs is wrong, I can only wonder about your opinions on other subjects. I have found several conspiracy theories that have easily been debunked. And I can only hope you're right about 9/11. But so far, all I'm finding are plenty of ways to debunk the debunkers. Oh, well.

I do appreciate the time you've taken to respond. Farewell.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lonestar - ahh, I like your style - telling me I don't know what I'm talking about in such a nice way. Well done.

I do try to avoid assumptions, you have probably heard that old grade-school adage about them, but in this case my assumption may have been correct.

But your visits are always welcome, especially if you would like to expound on your thoughts about the FED.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Thanks, @GA. I continue to learn.

In the case of assumptions, I'm afraid the old grade-school adage applies here completely. And yet you persist in thinking your assumption is correct. With someone who cares deeply about their own ego, you would likely be right. But for someone who abhors ego, attachment to any idea is often light or non-existent and frequently transitory, if such attachment exists at all. And that's the reason why your assumption is incorrect. I seek truth, not my own ego and the confirmation it craves.

If a 9/11 conspiracy exists within this country, then that is a very important topic for all citizens. And it does relate to the Fed. To let normalcy bias sweep it away could result in a travesty to which the Jews of Nazi Germany could have easily related.

I learned nearly half a century ago that a writer needs to show, don't tell. Nearly a decade ago, I learned something even sexier: imply, as well as show. Implication has all kinds of power to build an image without being blatantly obvious. Such was used all too well in the 9/11 incident and in the use of the Fed as a quasi-governmental entity.

Indeed, if the 9/11 incident was a Rockefeller and governmental conspiracy, then it may well be very closely related to the Fed. Why? Because the Fed monetizes debt, and the US government -- already with an insane quantity of debt at nearly $5 Trillion, launched several campaigns, with 9/11 as its driving force, which skyrocketed the debt, now standing at $15.5 Trillion and ACCELERATING! From insanity to suicidal madness. As long as the Fed monetizes the debt, Congress seems to feel quite happy to pour more debt on our heads.

When that Bubble Bursts (and it's only a matter of time, unless the sources of indebtedness are drastically dealt with), the financial landscape of the United States will make the 1930s Depression look like a picnic. Standard and Poors will have to downgrade the US to some new, sub-basement category -- third-world level, but buried under a massif of debt and a worthless dollar which could never pay it back.

No doubt, the Rothschilds would sit in quietly smug satisfaction at trouncing the unruly United States after its first two refusals to stay yoked to those foreign bankers. Perhaps they tried to get back at America with 1812 and the Jackson assassination attempt, but this is a much sweeter revenge -- total subjugation. If I were in their shoes, I would feel vindicated by this.

Fantasy? Perhaps. But there is enough insanity attached to all of this to make me suspicious and tend to lean toward believing such madness exists in the world. Such is the nature of selfishness, unbridled by conscience or worldly restraints. A banker who can manipulate the system from behind safe walls may feel veritably invulnerable to do any amount of harm so long as it forwards their long-range goals. Things like starting wars and financing both sides of the conflict. Greater control and greater profit. And yet, they appear to be nearly invisible, because they are merely a hidden third party to the very visible conflict.

When I learned about implication, it reminded me of something else I had learned nearly 40 years ago about a state of mind called "covert hostility." Implication comes in real handy with that. Attacks on ideas or someone's character can be performed without seeming obvious. I dare say, they sometimes seem entirely invisible, but they are felt. And the intended recipient is frequently left with the unsettling question about where the feeling came from. Everyone around them had seemed so "nice."


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lonestar - After hovering over the keyboard for several long minutes, pondering just where to start, I will just cast caution to the wind, and dive in. Even though I am unsure of the depth of the water.

You appear to be saying you are not driven by ego, yet your comments insist on proving that you are right and I am wrong - is that not an ego-driven position?

I believe ego is a good and necessary component to a successful existence. But like all good things - moderation is the key. Too little yields a too malleable vessel, too much leads to a myopic perspective.

Your response is well-crafted, but requires acceptance of a couple premises I am, as yet, unwilling to concede.

But, back to the Fed. Although anything may be possible, I believe possibilities must be judged in the context of probabilities. To accept the "Star Chamber" premise on such a scale exceeds my confidence in its probability.

But, as this is only my opinion, I could be as wrong, as I think I am right. I am hopeful that just as Zarathustra spake, I am neither herd nor herdsman, and there are enough of us to preclude the successful long-term existence of a global cabal capable of the secret machinations required to fulfill the contentions of the 9/11 and other "Star Chamber" conspiracy theorists.

GA

ps. my ego requires that I always try to be right, but only because of my need to feel like I know what I am talking about. I don't have a problem being wrong, either, because it means I have a chance to correct something I was incorrect about.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

GA, thanks for a delightful conversation.

I have entirely too much ego and I can see having none as a good thing and not at all malleable when the true self, child of God within awakens fully. But that's a completely different discussion.

Bush gave us his conspiracy theory and almost everyone bought it, though no one was willing to label it as a "conspiracy theory." This theory was made public 30 minutes after the first plane hit, and yet it took over 400 days to begin the "official" 9/11 investigation. Even I bought that "theory" for nearly a decade.

I did worry about how Bush was committing a crime by destroying crime scene evidence. Then it worried me a bit more when he dragged his feet for more than a year to start the investigation. And I just saw a YouTube video where 9/11 first responders were being interviewed about illnesses they contracted from their work at the 9/11 site. As of 2010, over 900 first responders had died of various cancers and other ailments, all after the EPA said the air quality was okay. Reminds me of what the government said about radiation being so safe in the early 1950s. Conspiracy or ineptitude (or both)?

You made the rather bold statement that you "have been satisfied by the non-government entities thoroughly debunked those conspiracy theories."

Thoroughly debunked? Or only debunked a few? Which ones? You see, there's a big difference between blanket generalities and specifics. Wouldn't you agree?

The fact that it is impossible for a reinforced steel structure to collapse at near-perfect free-fall speeds without a controlled demolition is a proven fact -- scientifically and methodically. Thoroughly debunked? I'm afraid not. Quite the contrary. Over 1600 architects and engineers would disagree with you on that point. And I do remember something of my high school physics about potential and kinetic energy being conserved. Unaffected girders offered no resistance! Dozens of floors of them! Impossible, but the official report says that's what happened. Conspiracy? What other conclusion can one reach when scientists ignore science?

It takes weeks to prepare for a controlled demolition of 3 buildings of the sizes of WTC1, 2 and 7. And each building was said to have very high security, especially WTC7 which had IRS and CIA offices in them.

How did Al Qaeda get into these 3 highly secure buildings -- repeatedly -- over a period of weeks to wire and prepare them for demolition without security noticing? It's interesting to note that one of Bush's brothers was on the board of the security company for the WTC. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it raises questions.

And at least some of the Al Qaeda "suicide" hijackers were found to be alive AFTER 9/11! One was even interviewed on BBC afterward. Debunked? Not in the slightest.

I understand that you're not interested in 9/11 or the truth behind it. Some conspiracy theories are clearly bunk, like the idea the airplanes didn't exist and were only holographic images. With so many eyewitnesses, that's thoroughly debunked.

But now, it seems that George W. Bush's conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked. The evidence (direct and indirect) is mounting and overwhelming. And yet the media won't touch the subject. The highly controversial Jesse Ventura (former governor and wrestler) was asked by Huffington Post to write an article for their website. He did and they put it up for a day. But then they retracted it, saying they don't cover anything that contradicts the official 9/11 story. Blatant censorship? When his article merely raised questions rather than making claims, one has to wonder about the transparency in the mainstream media of America.

GA, my views on everything are always in some degree of flux. Being right isn't all it's cracked up to be. Finding truth without attachment to self (ego) is far better. One can remain far more objective about it and less defensive -- something I aspire to.

On the "Fed," I agree with so many of the early American presidents -- it's a toxic organization. Was it Madison who got rid of the first Rothschild central bank? And the next year, did we get the retaliation -- 1812? Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans (War of 1812), seemed to hate the second central bank with a passion and hated the idea of "debt" with its interest. Was the assassination attempt over the closing of the central bank another form of payback?

Big question for you: Has anyone ever in the history of planet Earth ever been greedy enough to conspire to do criminal things? Has our own government ever planned a "false flag" operation? Have any of the rich ever considered themselves above the rest to the point where those poorer folk were considered expendable?

Basing a currency on debt would never have been my choice. The result of a debt based currency is runaway debt. Look at Bush accelerating the rate of indebtedness, going from $5 Trillion to $10 Trillion in 8 years, and Obama increasing the rate of indebtedness, cranking it up from $10 Trillion to $15.3 Trillion in only 3 years.

Another Big Question: After the dot-com and housing bubble bursts, do you think we could have another, Debt Bubble burst?

I haven't been able to find confirmation of it, but it has been said that Mayer Rothschild in the late 1700s said that all he needed was to run a central bank and the creation of currency and he would have control over a country, no matter what the legislators did. Can Congressmen been bought? Can Presidents? With the loss of liberties (shredding of the constitution with legislation in recent years), foreign bullying, and crazy spending, I suspect that a truly sane and patriotic government does not exist. Just look at the results -- quite the opposite.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lone77star - thanks once more for the visits, and as you said, the delightful conversations

For me, there are too many of the 9/11 conspiracy, (that the government did it), claims that are just beyond the pale, so let us just agree to disagree.

As to the Fed, I agree that it is a dangerous organization, and your points about the potential corrupting power of controlling a currency. But, I do believe that the globalization of commerce, and the diminished importance of an economic entity's "national" identity requires some sort of institution or agency to perform some of the economic buffering functions that the Fed does now. It is well "beyond my pay grade" to offer solution suggestions.

As for "ego" perhaps we see it differently, or not. For me it is, (ideally), primarily confidence in self and secondly, desire and drive to grow. Of course I recognize the negatives of extremes, but that is the case for all things.

The ideal of a "selfless" and "pure" being is not my cup of tea. Rather, I would strive to become a rational and reasoning being. So my concepts of right and wrong, truth and deception cannot be separated from my ego - nor would I want them to be.

Most of your points merely illustrate the obvious - the imperfections and fallacies of the human animal. Such as it always has been, so will it always be. We will always be an animal in nature, it will only be a matter of what level of rationality we can rise to.

Your thoughts on Bush, Madison, Jackson... perhaps. Or perhaps not. Maybe I see you giving the cunning of conspirators too much credit, or perhaps not. Perhaps it's just another matter of degrees.

How would it appear to you if another possibility, or two, were offered. What if the conspiracies you mention, and appear to view credibly, had the further components of alien manipulation from another dimension or alternate universe? I do not say that mockingly or facetiously - for right now, in the world of physics, quantum mechanics, and string theory, there are serious and intelligent minds that consider other dimensions and alternate universes to be real possibilities.

My point is that, as the Mr. Spock of TV said, and I truly believe, "there are always possibilities." I would just add that a rational mind would have to temper that realization with the issue of probability. And that is where I believe you and I see things differently.

GA


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@GA, got busy for awhile, so I've missed our conversation. I deeply appreciate what you've added. Some nice reasoning. It appears that on some things we agree, and some we disagree only by degree.

On the topic of the Fed, I've been educating myself even more. Living in the Philippines, it's hard to visit my favorite libraries, so I depend on the Internet. But after 5 years away from the Corporate Party Media, the slant they give on the news seems so much more apparent. One vital source for me has been YouTube.

True, conspiracy theories abound, and many of them aren't worth the paper on which they're written (i.e. worthless). But there is enough solid information, and verifiable information to make a strong case for conspiracy. Could the patterns merely be happy accident, gross ineptitude, or a combination of these? Possible, but by probabilities, it seems less and less likely. It seems that many of the patterns have intent behind them. Should it be surprising?

One video, though, caught my attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI. It's a couple of hours long and fascinating all the way through, but perhaps you don't have time for it.

It put a wrinkle in Ron Paul's idea of a strictly gold standard currency. But this, with several other videos, brought home the vile nature of a debt-based currency. Every dollar is debt. Debt, regrettably, equals slavery, and the Fed has been going crazy in the last 12 years skyrocketing that enslavement, all at the request of Bush, Obama and their respective congresses.

Conspiracy? Perhaps not. Perhaps we have had 2 presidents who have been fiscally suicidal and hundreds of congressional leaders with them. Coincidence that they should all go stark raving mad at the same time. Who in their right mind can call their spending sane? If that Debt Bubble pops, Earth is toast and America is ground zero. I'll tell you who it does make sense for -- the bankers! Foreclosing on America may be exactly what they want. So, why not go insane creating more and more debt.

The AIG fiasco reeks of conspiracy. Why? Who in their right mind would pile on tons of risk to the point of insanely jeopardizing the entire enterprise? Have you ever heard of anyone setting fire to their business to collect on the insurance? And how did AIG emerge from this fiasco? Did they have prior knowledge of a bailout? Study their actions and weight their consequences, and it seems quite possible.

You mentioned in your article that the Fed pays back its profits. With such a cloud of secrecy on what goes on behind their doors, who's to say how much their expenses really are, or whether or not those expenses are legitimate and in the public interest?

A 12-year Canadian girl seems to have an interesting take on the Canadian federal bank and all other private "Fed" central banks, including our own. Here she is talking in front of a gathering at the Public Banking Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3c-aN6Y7OU. This is one video you should watch, and it's only 6:44 long -- six minutes and a delightful speech by this 12-year-old.

You talk about probabilities. But one aspect in your calculation seems to be missing. Could you be missing the ingredient of perception and personal experience? Tell an Amazon tribesman about rockets to the moon and boxes that talk and contain other worlds in them, and he might think it all highly improbable. But we've witnessed Apollo and television; we know they're true.

In an earlier comment, you made it sound as though all conspiracies are loony tunes. What was the term you used? "Star chamber?" How convenient for many in the Corporate Media merely to use such a tactic to label a group as "fringe" or "loony" or "unpatriotic," and they don't have to argue against it. The label, for some, is enough.

No one wants to associate with a "loony" or someone who is "unpatriotic." But such flimsy techniques are used repeatedly to quash open, public debate. Both Bush and Obama paint those who question the "official" Conspiracy Theory as unpatriotic, and, contrary to your dismissal, the official report has been proven to have dozens, if not hundreds, of holes. And it shouldn't be surprising. A hand-picked team by the government had several conflicts of interest. And, if the government was involved in planning and perpetrating 9/11, then those conflicts would have included a desire to cover it all up.

I suppose one has to be able to ask,

* In the history of Earth, has there ever been even one conspiracy?

* Has a banker ever been greedy? (And I wonder if you've ever seen the Academy Award-winning documentary, "Inside Job," concerning the 2008 financial bubble pop.)

* In all of humanity's past, has anyone ever committed murder for personal gain?

* Has our government ever lied to us?

If you answered "no" to all of these, then this conversation is burnt beyond recognition (a waste of time). If you answered "no" to even one, then I seriously doubt your integrity.

I started out thinking that you were entirely naive -- an ostrich with his head buried in the sand, quite content not to look. Was I wrong?

One substantially documented conspiracy should be a wake-up call for everyone on this planet. And @GA, this isn't "theory;" this is fact: Operation Northwoods, early 1960s, developed by a top military official, recommended murdering American citizens and blaming it on the Cubans to gain sufficient public rage to back an attack against that island nation.

It talked about fake terrorism to create a public reaction for which they could offer their prepared solution. Thankfully, Kennedy's White House rejected using such a technique. But there are some indications that Johnson may have used it with the USS Liberty. One admiral apparently was told directly by Johnson to recall the wings (rescue fighters), and that he wanted that "damn ship" on the bottom. You see, Israel was repeatedly attacking the USS Liberty, despite its quite visible flag. Johnson needed an "excuse" to enter the war on the side of Israel.

Motive? Power, influence, oil? Take your pick. How about all 3? Direct evidence of conspiracy? No, but pretty damned close -- enough to warrant a much more thorough investigation than the dead and injured received for their assault by an ally and apparently condoned by our own president, if you can believe the admiral involved.

So, you don't want to believe such things. That's your prerogative. I have always loved the idea of an upright and righteous government that worked for the common good of the people -- a Star Trek Utopia where the Federation could go where no man has gone before. I am coming to suspect that we have quite the opposite.

When Nick Rockefeller tells Aaron Russo, October, 2000, about a "false flag" operation that would allow them to take over Iraq and Afghanistan, one can only conclude, in hindsight, that Mr. Rockefeller must have been talking about 9/11. Conspiracy? No direct proof of that, but burying your head in the sand won't make it go away. And such foreknowledge suggests intent hidden from public scrutiny. The complex nature of that disaster suggests many people involved. Combine hidden intent to do harm between many involved people, and you have a conspiracy. And that's a fact.

The Fed creates more debt for every dollar the government borrows to pay for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the nebulous, never-ending War on Terror. That's TRILLIONS of dollars into the coffers of the military-industrial complex, big oil and the banks themselves. And I've heard recently that Obama wants to lift the fractional lending ratio entirely — so that banks can loan out an infinite number of dollars for every dollar received from the Fed. There's a scary thought. Sounds like another bubble for popping.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 4 years ago from USA Author

@Lonestar - quite a comment, and rationally posed, but...

without going point by point, I believe our differences is in belief of scale.

Of course I believe in the possibility of conspiracy. On almost any level, but I have difficulty accepting the probability of several of your proposed conspiracies - merely based on the scale of people that would be involved.

Greed is a dominant characteristic, and a powerful driving force, but, one bad apple, two, three, or even a dozen, - at some point the barrel (cast of characters), will contain a moral person that will not quietly abide the actions of a group, and a secret will be exposed.

Except for the 9/11 issue, I grant your prepositions an inch - but not the mile to which you propose to extend them.

The potential threat posed by the military-industrial complex, big oil and the big bank's power to control governmental actions is real, and abuses have been uncovered and documented - but again, I hesitate to grant them the scale of control you propose them to have.

End fractional lending? That's a new one to me. And in our recent and current economic situation I cannot see it as a serious consideration. Certainly not something Obama would propose. Perhaps even - especially not from Obama. Deregulation isn't his mantra.

I don't think disagreeing with your perspective means I have my head in the sand, I think it just means I see the validity of that old showman's saying about fooling people. You know the one, it ends, "can't fool all the people all the time."

Glad to hear from you again.

GA


Nick Hanlon profile image

Nick Hanlon 4 years ago from Chiang Mai

Can we at least audit the FED?Remember the groans from Bernanke about the proposal to audit the FED.Sums up his attitude really.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working