May 6, 2013 
Ron Paul

Last week at its regular policy-setting meeting, the Federal Reserve announced it would double down on the policies that have failed to produce anything but a stagnant economy. It was a disappointing, but not surprising, move.

The Fed affirmed that it is prepared to increase its monthly purchases of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities if things don’t start looking up. But actually the Fed has already been buying more than the announced $85 billion per month. Between February and March, the Fed’s securities holdings increased $95 billion. From March to April, they increased $100 billion. In all, the Fed has pumped more than a half trillion dollars into the economy since announcing its latest round of “quantitative easing” (QE3) in September 2012.
Although many were up in arms when the Fed said it would buy $600 billion in government debt outright for the previous round, QE2, all seems quiet about the magnitude of QE3 because it doesn’t come with huge up-front total price tag. But by year’s end the Fed’s balance sheet could hit $4 trillion.
With no recovery in sight, where’s all this money going? It is creating bubbles. Bubbles in the housing sector, the stock market, and government debt. The national debt is fast approaching $17 trillion, with the Fed monetizing most of the newly issued debt. The stock market has been hitting record highs for the past two months as investors seek to capitalize on the Fed’s easy money. After all, as long as the Fed keeps the spigot open, nominal profits are there for the taking. But this is a house of cards. Eventually, just like in 2008-2009, the market will discipline the bad actions of the Fed and seek to find the real normal.
In the meantime, real families are suffering. While Wall Street and the government take advantage of access to the Fed’s new “free” money, the Fed claims there is no inflation. But who hasn’t paid higher prices at the grocery store, the gas pump, for tuition, for insurance? It’s bad enough that household incomes have stagnated, but real purchasing power has declined so much that one in seven Americans, 47.3 million people, are on food stamps. Five million are collecting unemployment insurance with 21.5 million afflicted by unemployment according to the government’s own figures. That’s 13.9 percent — close to double the 7.5 percent unemployment number reported last week.
We are certainly not in a recovery. We don’t see the long unemployment and soup kitchen lines like in the Great Depression, but that’s just because the lines are electronic now.
It is not surprising the Fed has decided to hand the American people more of the same failed policies. But it is disappointing. We know what the real solution is: allow the marketplace to work. Allow entrepreneurs the chance to create instead of stifling innovation with arbitrary regulations. Allow interest rates to rise to equal the risks in the economy. Allow bad debts to be liquidated so we can build on a firm foundation. Stop printing money to benefit the government and big banks. Restore sound money to the economy and the American people. Sound money is the bedrock for prosperity and the best check on big government and crony capitalism.
Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running. 
Related Articles

 26 Agt 2011
Minister Farrakhan on Ron Paul & Exposing the Federal Reserve and International Bankers [VIDEO] | HERE

Minister Louis Farrakhan details the events that happened at the turn of the century that guaranteed the doom of the United States of America. In 1914, a group of International Bankers took control of America's finances, thus, sealing the doom of this country

MARCH 23, 2013 
The Lasting Effects of the Federal Reserve Act

Is the Federal Reserve Act Constitutional?
By Corey L. Rollins

“We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
-Woodrow Wilson (Wilson, 1921)
To understand the Federal Reserve Act, you must first understand what the Federal Reserve System is. The Federal Reserve System was created by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Its’ current duties, are to manage the U.S. monetary policy, supervise and regulate over all other U.S. banking institutions and provide loans to the U.S. government, smaller banks and foreign institutions. (FRBSF, 2013) Many people believe that the Federal Reserve banks are government institutions. This is not true; the Federal Reserve is owned by private shareholders. One-hundred percent of these shareholders are private banks and absolutely none of its’ stock is owned by the U.S. government. Although the Fed’s (Federal Reserve’s) official website claims that it is not privately owned, there is overwhelming evidence to support that this is false. 

Following the panic of 1907, the Federal Reserve was established as a “lender of the last resort.” The Fed’s purpose at the time was the same as it is now, to keep the private banking system operational; and that meant maintaining a monopoly on the production of the national money supply. Except for coins, every U.S. dollar is currently created as a debt to the Federal Reserve, or more accurately, the banking system it heads. The Federal Reserve does not receive funding through the congressional budgetary process; its’ primary source of income is from interest received through government securities that it has obtained through open market operations. (Brown, 2013) The reason that we have an income tax is to repay the loans issued by the Federal Reserve. Without the Fed, there would be no need for an income tax. (Kidd, 2001) 
In the early history of the United States, very few taxes were imposed on its’ citizens. From 1791 until 1802, the U.S. government collected taxes limited to the sale of alcohol, carriages, sugar, tobacco, auctioned-off property, corporate bonds, and slaves. This money was used to maintain government operations. However, In order to pay off the debts incurred from the War of 1812, the government imposed sales taxes on jewelry, silverware, watches and gold. Congress eliminated those taxes in 1817, and, instead, supported itself simply by collecting tariffs from imports brought into the country. The government continued to support itself with these tariffs until 1862, when the government needed more money to finance the Civil War effort. This is when the United States passed its’ first law on income tax. This tax was based on a progressive scale, similar to what is used today and the lowest tax rate was three percent. The Act of 1862 was also the birth of the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or what is now known as the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS (for the most part, the Commissioner’s powers were in line with the powers that the IRS has today). Tax rates were changed with the Internal Revenue Act of June 30, 1864, and the lowest tax rate became five percent (all other tax rates increased as well). This tax change was deemed necessary in order to generate additional revenue to fund the Civil War. After the Civil war ended in 1865, it took another seven years for the additional taxes to be eliminated. 
Once more, congress looked instead to alcohol and tobacco for revenue. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in 1895, that the taxes collected during the Civil War period were unconstitutional because “the taxes were not collected properly by the states”. This is why in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, ensuring that “income taxes were a permanent part of the United States economy, and Congress could tax incomes however they saw fit”. (Essortment, 2011) 
In a speech delivered to the House of Representatives, the father of the famous aviator, Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr. (R-MN) stated, 
“This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeter’s could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress… The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government.”
The early 19th century predecessor to the Federal Reserve was the Bank of the United States. In 1829, when Andrew Jackson became President, he vowed to limit the banks power over the economy. He called the institution 
“a hydra-headed monster… it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen… and sought to destroy our republican institutions.”
The bank president conspired with members of congress including Henry Clay and Daniel Webster to petition for an extension of the bank’s 20 year charter. Since it was an election year, they assumed that if congress approved the extension, Jackson would not risk losing a re-election for a veto. 
They assumed incorrectly. Several of the reasons Jackson cited for vetoing the charter included:
“•It was a dangerously centralized financial power
•It held an unconstitutional monopoly on finance that only helped the rich get richer
•It made the economy vulnerable to foreign and special interests
•It held too much influence over federal politicians
•It favored the North (where most financial centers were located) over the South and West”

To the surprise of his opponents, the American people sided with Jackson on the decision, and despite the veto, he easily won the re-election. Emboldened by his big victory, Jackson ordered the treasury secretary to withdraw federal funds from the bank, draining the capital that the Bank needed for briberies. Without federal funding, the bank died shortly afterwards. 
Jackson’s victory improved economic conditions and provided citizens with more freedom throughout the 1840’s and 1850’s. Ironically however, his devotion to the spoils system, doubled the size of the government in his term which cut into the prosperity and liberty created by defeating nationalized banking. (Coffey, 2012) 
Jackson was far from a saint, the architect of the trail of tears’ greatest accomplishment, in his own opinion, was that he “killed the Bank” (the epitaph many people believe to be engraved on his tombstone). (Mitchell, 2008) 
According to former congressman Ron Paul’s official website, 
“The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar.” 
Ron Paul has long argued that the Federal Reserve is outright illegal. Once quoted saying, 
“One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government.” 
some of his condemnation is based on Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which assigns the right of coining money to congress. Remember, as I mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve is not a government entity, but instead, a private one.
On January 26, 2011 
Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 to congress and on July 25, 2012 Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill was passed by the House of Representatives with bi-partisan support, 327 to 98. However, according to U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, (R-GA) 
“The do-nothing Senate failed to act on the bill before the end of the 112th Congress, causing it to flat line.” He then stated, “Moving forward, my plan is to pick up right where Congressman Paul left off” in early January, 2013. (Unruh, 2013) 
In only ten years, the U.S. national debt has nearly tripled. (TreasuryDirect, 2012) Currently at over 16 trillion dollars, that is over $50,000 per citizen, when divided up. (U.S.DebtClock, 2013) Now we are being told that we need to generate a substantial amount of money to protect and maintain a heavily flawed system whose sole objective is to further empower and enrich the Federal Reserve bankers who own and operate the system. 
It has been many years since the United States became the most indebted nation on Earth. 
On April 21, 1992 
Senator John Danforth, from Missouri stated 
“I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. … I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. … We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected.” 
Unfortunately, the national debt has quadrupled since he said this in 1992. (Mann, 1992) | HERE 

January 29, 2013
Brown, E. (2013, January 19). Who Owns The Federal Reserve? Retrieved from Global Research:
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks
By Ellen Brown 

 “Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.” – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s 
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.
1) In September 2008 
The Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. 
The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. 
The Associated Press reported:
“The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2)This is extraordinary. 
Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? 
Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
“The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. ' 
According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):
“The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.”
“To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3)
If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. 
  1. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
  2. Not Private and Not for Profit? 
The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is notfunded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads. 
4) The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. 
The website states:
* “The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”
* “[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”
* “The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”
5) So let’s review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”
Here is how it works: 
When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. 
It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote:
“When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.”
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans. 
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
“[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.”
As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. 
The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. 
  • If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies. 
  • If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades. | HERE
Posted: Jan. 15th, 2012 
Charles A. Lindbergh, S. (1913, December 22). (1859-1924) Congressman (R-MN), father of famous aviator. In a speech before the House of Representatives.
Coffey, W. (2012, January 15). Andrew Jackson and the Central Bank. Retrieved from Tea Party Tribune:

Can you imagine a president taking on the Federal Reserve System today? That’s what Andrew Jackson did in 1832, and it changed America forever. 
In the early 19th century, the forerunner to the Federal Reserve was the Bank of the United States. When Jackson became president in 1829, he vowed to curb the Bank’s power over the national economy, calling the institution “a hydra-headed monster… it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen… and sought to destroy our republican institutions.” Today, many free market economists are saying the same thing about the Fed. 
The Bank president conspired with friendly members of Congress such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster to petition for an extension of its 20-year charter in 1832, an election year. They calculated that if Congress approved re-chartering the Bank, Jackson would not risk losing reelection with a veto. 
They guessed wrong.
  • In a stern veto, Jackson cited several reasons for refusing to re-charter the Bank:
  • It was a dangerously centralized financial power
  • It held an unconstitutional monopoly on finance that only helped the rich get richer
  • It made the economy vulnerable to foreign and special interests
  • It held too much influence over federal politicians
  • It favored the North (where most financial centers were located) over the South and West
  • All of these arguments could be made today against the Federal Reserve System.
Jackson’s opponents thought that the veto would end his career. Again, they guessed wrong as the people sided with him, and he easily won reelection. Emboldened by his victory, Jackson ordered the Treasury secretary to withdraw federal funds from the Bank, which drained the capital that the Bank needed to dole out favors. Without federal funding, the Bank quietly died within a few years. 
Jackson’s victory over the Bank decentralized the economy and led to greater economic prosperity and individual freedom through the 1840s and 1850s. However, his devotion to patronage (i.e., granting jobs to political allies) doubled the size of the federal government during his term, which centralized power in Washington at the people’s expense. This chipped into the prosperity and freedom generated by the end of nationalized banking. 
Central banking did not reemerge in America until the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Congress passed a series of laws creating a national banking system. This system was solidified with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. 
In the end, the central bank returned in the form of the Fed, and the size of government has increased to record levels, partly thanks to Jackson’s precedent. Thus, individual liberty ultimately lost on both counts. | HERE 
Essortment. (2011). United States Income Tax History. Retrieved from Essortment.com:
Learn about United States Income Tax, and the history of how the system began. 
In this day and age, April fifteenth means "Income Tax" time to many people across the United States. This is the due date for everyone to have their federal as well as their state income taxes filed. It is an especially important date for the people who have to pay additional taxes. The Internal Revenue Service has the power to impose stiff penalties and fines, as well as imprisonment, for anyone who doesn't file, pay their income taxes, or pay them on time. 
It hasn't always been this way, in fact, in the nation's early history, very few taxes were imposed on the people of the United States. From the years 1791 up until 1802, the Government collected taxes on alcohol, carriages, sugar, tobacco, auctioned-off property, corporate bonds, and slaves, and this money was used to run the Government. 
So what happpened to change it all? In order to pay off the debts that were incurred from the War of 1812, sales taxes were were imposed on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. Congress was good enough to do away with those taxations in 1817, and, instead, the Government was supported by collecting tariffs from imports brought into the country. 
This continued on until 1862, when the government again needed money to support the Civil War effort. Congress then passed the nation's first income tax law. It was based on a progressive scale, much like what is used today. The lowest tax rate was a flat three percent, and it applied to people who earned anywhere between six hundred and ten thousand dollars a year. The next highest tax rate was five percent, and it was levied on any income amount that exceeded ten thousand dollars. For people who earned a higher dollar amount, the rates were increased accordingly. The Act of 1862 was also the beginning of the Internal Revenue Service as we know it today. It started out as being called the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, but the Commissioner's powers were pretty much in line with the powers that the IRS has today. 
A couple years later, the tax rates were changed when the Government instituted the Internal Revenue Act of June 30, 1864. The people who earned between six hundred and five thousand dollars now paid five percent, while the people who earned over five thousand dollars paid ten percent of their incomes. This tax change was needed in order to generate additional revenue to fund the Civil War. Now, every taxpayer had to submit a list of their income as well as a list of any taxable property they might have to the tax assessor before the first Monday in May. And, fines were imposed on people who failed to abide by the tax laws. 
The Civil War ended in 1865, but it took seven years for the additional taxes to be eliminated. And, in 1872, Congress did away with the imposed income tax once again. Instead of taxing people's incomes, Congress once again looked towards the taxation of tobacco and alcohol for revenue. 
Many people questioned the validity of the taxes imposed during the Civil War times, and the United States Supreme Court finally handed down a ruling in the year of 1895, that said that the income tax was unconstitutional because the taxes were not collected proportionately among the states. 
To correct this situation, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on February 25, 1913. Now, income taxes were a permanent part of the United States economy, and Congress could tax incomes however they saw fit. 
In later years, the withholding tax was instituted, and with the increased employment during World War II, tax collections rose to forty-three billion dollars by 1945. 
Interestingly enough, over the years, there have been several grass roots efforts by Americans who still believe that the idea of a mandatory income tax, as well as the Sixteenth Amendment, are unconstitutional. At least one group claims to have proof that the amendment was not even ratified because at least eleven states did not vote on it. The main goal of these groups is to get the amendment declared legally null and void. 
Today, figuring out your taxes, and the many different tax forms and schedules can still be complicated, but thanks to the technological advances made by the Internal Revenue Service, filing one's taxes is as easy as ever. If you need to obtain a certain form, you can get it from the IRS by downloading it from the Internet, or, you can have it faxed right to you. 
Also, taxpayers can file, as well as pay, if need be, their federal and state taxes via the Internet too. A person can even use their credit card to pay for their tax debt. And, if their return is a simple one, they can file by using a telephone. 
However, millions of tax payers still employ the services of a professional tax preparer in order to get their taxes done in accordance with the laws of Government.  HERE 
FRBSF. (2013). What is the Fed? Retrieved from frbsf.org:  What is the Fed?
The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. Its duties today are to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions. | HERE
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Updated 01/25/2012 
Kidd, D. (2001, June). Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government. Retrieved from Devvy.com:  
Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
Devvy Kidd

Also available on audio for free; | HERE
Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end. 
Where do your "income" tax dollars go?
The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let's take just one at random:
January 15, 1984 
President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)
January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.
"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000. Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days. 
Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that: With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government." 
So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper "money" that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink. 
The National Debt and the Deficit
These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for "reduction in the debt." 
But what does that really mean? Here's how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:
Let's say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal "income" taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the "Federal" Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let's take the people's blood and sweat off the table. 
What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let's say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the "national debt." 
How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children's and grand babies' futures. The "Federal" Reserve Banks don't loan anything of value to Congress. They aren't banks; they're really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing "national debt." 
This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the "Fed" and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the "Fed." Pretty slick scam, wouldn't you say? 
The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments. 
Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don't return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs. 
As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt. 
Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the "Fed" transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road. 
America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can't get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous. 
But I heard the debt is being paid down?
What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let's have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress. 
In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 "election", but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords 'fessed up to his real political agenda. 
Current Congressionally created debt:
$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
$15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
$14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
$14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
$13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
$12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
$11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
$11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
$10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
$9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
$8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
$7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
$7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
$6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
$6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
$5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
$5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
$5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
$5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
$5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
$5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
$5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
$5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
$5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
$4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
$4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
$4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
$3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
$3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
$2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
$2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)
The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt's web site: | HERE 
As you can see, it doesn't matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips. 
A "balanced budget" is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it's a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. 
How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can't. It's just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified. 
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax. 
No "Fed," no need for a direct tax
Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax. President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here : | HERE  
This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind. 

  • "The greatest party battle of Jackson's presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.
  • "Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. "The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.
  • "His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay."

Please note that the words "a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy" comes directly from the White House's web site. What a huge admission! 
On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden's indictmenton the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country's wealth since 1913. 
Don't be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply "proclaimed" ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox. 
We don't need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:
    "Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on."
Please don't fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn't care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) - just as long as they continue to steal from us: 

  • Beware alternative taxing schemes | HERE
  • Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed | HERE
  • Today is April 15 ... again | HERE  
What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the "Fed," which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution: 
Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: "promote" does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ** 
There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly. 
Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. 
Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation: 
"The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise. 
  • "Freedom of business transactions essential.
  • "The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented. 
The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Financesfor 1921:
"But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings. 
What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer's improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller's putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on. 
These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government's revenues would benefit accordingly. 
The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive. 
It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits." (End of excerpt.) 
Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. 
How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough! 
A Pioneer on the withholding issue
Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man's paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: HERE]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point: 
    "Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.
    "The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington's, business.
    "There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.
    "The census was to count the people - that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.
    "For a long time I asked myself, 'Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?' It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.
    "I read again: 'Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers...' 'No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.
    "An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.
    "Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.
    "However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily......
    "The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor. Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it's too bad we changed that provision."
(Editorial Note: We didn't. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud--it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)
    "That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.
    "But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.
    "When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.
    "The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called 'Democrats' of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.
    "This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.
    "And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.
    "And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income 'from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration' could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away." (End of excerpt.)
The "General Welfare" Clause of the Constitution
The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. Shawn O'Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:
"Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals' life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:
"That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.
The Anti-Federalists still weren't satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn't make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government." [End of comment.]
The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to "get that vote," and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the "New Deal" implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights. 
How would you fund the government without any direct taxation? 
The powers that be know it's just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank. 
America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population. 
Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it. 
Has your government been truthful?
Do you know why the "withholding tax" system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:
Declassified (Confidential Committee Print)
Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance,
United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on:
Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance)
United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942
SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution
Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution
Paul, Randolph E., Treasury Department 
Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of "mopping up excess purchasing power" thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose. 
The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:
  1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.
  2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.
  3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a "coupon," "stamp" or "withholding of income tax at source," would constitute a "forced loan" to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.
  4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.
  5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.
Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99 
Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution
"It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it's effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*
Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.
Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power...Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls."
  • Senator Clark: "Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?"
  • Mr. Jacobstein: "I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax."
  • Senator Clark: "So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes."
  • Mr. Jacobstein: "That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word "self-assessment." If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer's end but at the retailer's end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax. It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But...for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage. Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher's proposal...." 
Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution
  • Mr. Hardy: "First...mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes. I would like to say...that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war. Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven't spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with. That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it. I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again."
  • Senator Danaher: "Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year..."
  • Mr. Hardy: "The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?"
  • Senator Danaher: "Yes."
  • Mr. Hardy: "Yes."
  • Senator Danaher: "That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld."
  • Mr. Hardy: "That is right."
  • Senator Danaher: "And the applied as against the tax due."
  • Mr. Hardy: "Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure."
  • Senator Danaher: "And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?"
  • Mr. Hardy: "I assume so."
  • Senator Danaher: "Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing."
  • Mr. Hardy: "It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income."
  • Senator Danaher: "Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers."
  • Mr. Hardy: "Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea."
  • Mr. Jacobstein: "Don't you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko's conclusion."
Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
  • Senator Danaher: "I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?"
  • Mr. Friedman: "You thinking of a corporation or an individual?"
  • Senator Danaher: "I am talking about an individual."
  • Mr. Friedman: "An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund." End of document excerpts.

What bald faced lies. "Mop up purchasing power"? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. 
How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: "To coin money, regulate the value thereof," Cut out the middle man ("Fed") and the Treasury wouldn't "need the money." What a con game.
T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report,
May 25, 1956:
"....We're confiscating property now....That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." 
Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946:
"The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences --- all of them bad." 
  • Does the average man or woman in America know this?
  • What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency?
Read this quote
from an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:
Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4:
"Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government ..."
If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop. 
What can you do?
The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can't have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct "PAC money."
Sometimes it's difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.
However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn't what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don't sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.
I realize everyone's time is at a premium, but I encourage you to read these recent columns over a cup coffee. Things are escalating and going to get much worse and Americans are going to get caught off guard:
Mann, F. (1992). The Economic Rape of America Chapter 3. Free America! Institute.
Mitchell, K. A. (2008, December 1). President Andrew “I Killed the Bank” Jackson, Where Art Thou? Retrieved from Ezinearticles:

President Andrew "I Killed the Bank" Jackson, Where Art Thou?
By Karl Mitchell 
"I'm sorry, but he knew about our getting hit...on three big machines in a row and he did nothing about it. That means, either he was in on it or he was too dumb to see what was goin' on. Either way, I cannot have a man like that working here." --- a scene from the Casino (based on a true story).
The above quote pertains to Las Vegas Casino Boss Rothstein
Following Mr. Rothstein's train of thought, 
  • why are the architects (i.e., Robert Rubin [CitiGroup], Lawrence Summers [Harvard] and Timothy Geithner [the Fed]) of the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression are being recycled into key economic advisor and Treasury department posts? 
  • Wouldn't you agree with Mr. Rothstein that either they were in on it or they were too dumb to see what was goin' on? 
  • Why would you want men like those working in key government positions? 
Unless, paraphrasing Mr. Rothstein, you hire ex-cheats (or cheats) to be the eye in the sky that watches all of us. Then again, Mr. Rothstein should know...since he was part of an organized crime syndicate. Mr. Rothstein's role was to ensure a smooth operation as the mob skimmed their profits from the unenlightened "suckers" who played the game (the house always win). 
Casino confirmed a Huffington Post writer's comment that "Politics, especially at the national level, is organized crime." For me, I'm an optimist. 
In my last article, I mentioned President Thomas Jefferson's "revolutionary" essay when he asked, "Who's watching the watchers and who's guarding the guardians?" Said "revolutionary" essay should be mandatory reading on all school levels. Oops, I forgot - "critical thinking" was expelled from our school system - only dogmas need apply going forward.... 
As for President-elect Obama, it was reported that he is studying books on FDR's, Teddy Roosevelt's and JFK's approach to the Presidency. I recommend he studies, foremost, books on President Andrew Jackson's approach to the Presidency. 
President Andrew Jackson proved to be a true leader and not a manager. He led the country through its crisis instead of managing the crisis. What did President Andrew Jackson accomplish? 
He balanced the U.S. federal budget and paid off (some historians/economists argued he didn't pay it off but made it the lowest in history) the national debt. He survived an assassination attempt unlike Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. The four latter Presidents were known for their profile in courage. They were leaders and not managers. They were Presidents of a sovereign state and not de facto cabinet ministers of a supra-state beholding to a foreign entity. They lived by the oath to obey the U.S. Constitution instead of an arcane, alien and I digress; let's return to President Andrew Jackson - a true leader. To be fair and balance, President Jackson wasn't a saint. He was an architect of the infamous Trail of Tears. Also, President Jackson's Jacksonian Revolution and Spoils System were not perfect. To the contrary, he wasn't infallible.... Nonetheless, President Andrew Jackson's greatest accomplishment, in his own opinion, is that "he killed the Bank" (his epitaph on his tombstone).
Returning to President-elect Obama, let's hope he brings change that we can believe in. Let's hope he executes the mandate and honors the wishes (in the majority) of those who elected him. Let's hope when he swears on the Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution - the oath supersedes any other allegiance (whether foreign or domestic; for good or for ill; transparent or secretive). Let's hope he brings changes to the Fed (more transparency; too much gray area/overlapping interests between the Fed and Wall street; untangle the conflicting interests; shed light on "the private/independent" components of the Fed - are they the same web of actors/forces on Wall street and elsewhere?) Let's hope President-elect Obama looks to President Andrew "I kill the Bank" Jackson, in part, as a role model.
In God we trust.
Karl A. Mitchell
Article Source:  HERE
Treasury Direct. (2012, September 30). Historical Debt Outstanding. Retrieved from TreasuryDirect.gov:
 Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today. 
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
  1. The Public Debt -  VISIT : HERE
  2. U.S.Debt Clock. (2013, February). U.S. Debt Clock. Retrieved from USDebtClock.org: | HERE

 01/03/2013 at 8:59 PM
Unruh, B. (2013, 1 3). It’s back! ‘Audit the Fed’ launched. Retrieved from
Longtime Ron Paul campaign taken up by Georgia congressman

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the longtime advocate of Congress taking back control of U.S. monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, may have retired, but his goal of a full audit of the central banking authority survives. 
U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., today announced that he has relaunched Paul’s “Audit the Fed” proposal and he will be pursuing the Texas congressman’s goal. | Read more at HERE  
“I first want to thank Congressman Ron Paul for his tireless and unwavering dedication to auditing the Federal Reserve,” Broun announced. “His efforts paid off when the House passed his legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support during the 112th Congress.

“This accomplishment in itself marked the most significant stride made toward bringing real transparency to the nation’s monetary policy. Unfortunately, as has become the status quo, the do-nothing Senate failed to act on the bill before the end of the 112th Congress, causing it to flat line,” he said.

Broun’s proposal is the same as Paul’s, for a “full audit by the U.S. Comptroller General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve banks.” 
He said he now is circulating the bill among House members to allow them to come aboard the campaign.
“Moving forward, my plan is to pick up right where Congressman Paul left off,” Broun said. “Our economy is far from recovering, and the recent fears regarding the potential impacts of the ‘fiscal cliff’ and its aftermath prove that the American people must continue to demand transparency from the entity charged with ensuring stable economic and monetary policy. 
“While measures requiring partial audits of the Fed have become law in recent years, it’s clear that current policy does not go far enough. I am honored to carry on one of Rep. Paul’s legacies, as well as his efforts to advocate for a full audit of the Fed, which remains as active – and as closely guarded – as ever.” 
Broun said his version of the bill is identical to Paul’s H.R. 459, which was approved in the House 327-98 with 274 cosponsors. 
Special opportunity today: Get Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” for $4.95 only. Paul battled for transparency from the Fed throughout his career and just weeks ago scheduled a hearing to examine the Fed’s operations. 
It was Paul’s Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee that held a hearing on the Fed’s practice of loaning money to large banks and others essentially for no interest at all. 
“The Federal Reserve is relentless in pursuing a policy of zero interest rates, as manifest by their decision last week to engage in another round of quantitative easing and keep the federal funds rate at zero for another three years,” 
Paul said in preparation.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced just days ago another round of money printing by the U.S. government. 
There is a petition process set up to urge members of Congress to act on plans to audit the Fed. The central bank’s objective is to keep interest rates low to trigger more spending and more hiring. During Obama’s first term, lowering interest rates was the Fed’s primary tool to revive the economy, but it’s become ineffective, because rates are near zero. 
Paul for years advocated a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which routinely shrouds its actions in secrecy.
“The Fed is intent on ignoring that their policy of low interest rates in the past brought us the financial crisis of 2008 and their zero interest rate policy of today is prolonging the agony while sowing the seeds for a much larger crash in future,” Paul had said. “Their manipulation of interest rates – essentially price setting – can only ever have destructive effects on the American economy. Artificially low interest rates continue to cause malinvestment and misallocation of resources throughout the economy. Savers and investors suffer from negative real interest rates, while the federal government takes advantage of the Fed’s zero interest rate policy to run up gargantuan fiscal deficits. “These problems cannot and will not be remedied until the Fed stops manipulating the price of money,” he said. Paul long argued that the Federal Reserve simply is illegal. Some of his concerns have been based on Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the right to coin money. There is no mention in the Constitution of a central bank, and it wasn’t until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the Fed was created.
Paul previously has said: “Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.”
And he proposed repeatedly the idea of auditing the Fed to determine exactly what it has been doing and then begin making corrections. With a book titled “End the Fed,” he’s made no secret of his ultimate goal. 
That the Fed is at least partly to blame for the financial problems that have developed in the U.S. seems not to be in dispute. 
It was longtime Fed Chairman Bernanke who admitted as much. Bernanke said it was the Fed that caused the Great Depression. It was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. 
At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor economist Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago. 
After citing how Friedman and a co-author documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke added: 
Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and [Anna] Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.
It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous “liquidationist” thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view. 
In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …
History records that in 1913 President Woodrow Wilson approved the Federal Reserve Act but later reflected that his actions “unwittingly ruined my country.”
Wilson said that since the U.S. system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few, 
“we have become … one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.” 
Paul was named WND’s “Man of the Decade” for his work on the audit plan and other efforts.
HERE Wilson, W. (1921, October 15). The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. Columbia University: Doubleday, Page.
Jerry Nelson, corporate communications, the Federal Reserve, expounds upon ownership of the Fed. These are some of the most memorable extracts from the excellent “Meet the Federal Reserve” video by Restore the Republic. ”If people understood the banking system they would revolt.” ~ Henry Ford
 18 Feb 2009

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation | WATCH : HERE
Jerry Nelson, corporate communications, the Federal Reserve, expounds upon ownership of the Fed. These are some of the most memorable extracts from the excellent "Meet the Federal Reserve" video by Restore the Republic, full version at: | HERE 
Some other words from various Fed officials, bankers and Supreme Court judges on ownership and control of the banking system:
"The Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, locally controlled, separate corporations." Lewis v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court, June 24, 1982
"We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system."
Robert Hemphill: , Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, 1934 
"Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd." J. P. Morgan, January 1934 
"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes the laws." 
Baron N.M. Rothchild, 1815
Share on Google Plus

About Octa Dandy Saiyar

Kelahiran Jakarta keturunan asli Bukittinggi, Sumatera Barat .
07 Oktober 1983.

    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 komentar:

Twitter Feed