[investor]

Allen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?

[investor]

Allen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?

[investor]

Allen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?

[investor]

Allen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?

[investor]

Allen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[Author]

Posts