PDA

View Full Version : JFK vs. The Federal Reserve



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-26-2011, 05:28 AM
Thought this was interesting....:

JFK vs. The Federal Reserve

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Common Law Institute has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage - signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency - money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority:

"to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."

This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assasinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. "United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of instrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and real value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assasinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt: 1) war (Viet Nam); and, 2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.

Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended -

(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

http://www.dailypaul.com/17851/jfk-vs-the-federal-reserve-dr-paul-could-enact-this-the-first-day-in-office

Starbuck
03-26-2011, 11:04 AM
OK.

So what would the financial system look like without The Federal Reserve Bank?

Tecate
03-26-2011, 11:15 AM
OK.

So what would the financial system look like without The Federal Reserve Bank?
The coins would still be made of 90% silver, the paper money would still be backed up by precious metals (gold and silver) and a cup of coffee would cost a nickel.

Starbuck
03-26-2011, 12:32 PM
The coins would still be made of 90% silver, the paper money would still be backed up by precious metals (gold and silver) and a cup of coffee would cost a nickel.
Never gonna happen, of course, without widespread rioting and starvation.
So let's say the Fed Reserve Bank was abolished tomorrow. What would happen in the ensuing weeks? Next year? What positive things?

Tecate
03-26-2011, 01:01 PM
Never gonna happen, of course, without widespread rioting and starvation.
So let's say the Fed Reserve Bank was abolished tomorrow. What would happen in the ensuing weeks? Next year? What positive things?
It couldn't be done overnight. It would have to be a years-long process and it would be painful no doubt. BTW, the federal reserve is not the USA's first central bank, it is our fourth. What happened to the first three? They collapsed. Why? They did the very same thing that the central bankers are doing right now.

Without one bubble after another in the financial system, there is no way our current debt-based ecomony can avoid an eventual complete collapse. Either way we lose, and the bankers set it up that way by design.

Every time there has been a monetary collapse all throughout history (and there have been many) the gold and silver comes out of hiding and back into use... Every time. No exceptions.


I have to jump ship and will probably be away from the computer for a while... Maybe a week or more.

Starbuck
03-26-2011, 02:03 PM
It couldn't be done overnight. It would have to be a years-long process and it would be painful no doubt. BTW, the federal reserve is not the USA's first central bank, it is our fourth. What happened to the first three? They collapsed.
Well, not really. Andy Jackson shot one of 'em in the head.:) They had it coming, too.
And The Fed Reserve Bank has lasted for darn near a hundred years. Is it really that bad?


Every time there has been a monetary collapse all throughout history (and there have been many) the gold and silver comes out of hiding and back into use... Every time. No exceptions.
Wasn't used after Black Wednesday, when the British Pound tanked. Wasn't used last week when Portugal failed. Greece. Cuba. Crash of '29. Argentina. Venezuela. I just don't know of a time when people threw away their money and used little pieces of silver or gold.:confused:

Tecate
04-01-2011, 10:07 AM
Well, not really. Andy Jackson shot one of 'em in the head.:) They had it coming, too.
And The Fed Reserve Bank has lasted for darn near a hundred years. Is it really that bad?


Wasn't used after Black Wednesday, when the British Pound tanked. Wasn't used last week when Portugal failed. Greece. Cuba. Crash of '29. Argentina. Venezuela. I just don't know of a time when people threw away their money and used little pieces of silver or gold.:confused:
You need to go back a bit further... A $5 gold coin was $5 in the marketplace from 1795-1933. Also, during the crash of '29 gold and silver coins were very much in use in this country. I own many of them from before and during that time. The dimes, quarters and half dollars were 90% silver through 1964.

I can't understand why folks put up so much resistance to the fact that gold and silver are money and have a much longer history of actually being money instead of just "commodities". We're living in a time in history that would be considered the exception rather than the rule when it comes to gold and silver coins being physically spent and actually changing hands for goods and services. Ignoring history doesn't negate it.

Arroyo_Doble
04-01-2011, 10:23 AM
You need to go back a bit further... A $5 gold coin was $5 in the marketplace from 1795-1933. Also, during the crash of '29 gold and silver coins were very much in use in this country. I own many of them from before and during that time. The dimes, quarters and half dollars were 90% silver through 1964.

I can't understand why folks put up so much resistance to the fact that gold and silver are money and have a much longer history of actually being money instead of just "commodities". We're living in a time in history that would be considered the exception rather than the rule when it comes to gold and silver coins being physically spent and actually changing hands for goods and services. Ignoring history doesn't negate it.

The problem I have with the argument is that it seems you are just replacing one arbitrary place holder of value with another.

Granted, there is some utility to metals but as far as it representing the value of a barrel of pickles, what difference does it make if it is metal or paper?

Starbuck
04-01-2011, 11:14 AM
The problem I have with the argument is that it seems you are just replacing one arbitrary place holder of value with another.

Granted, there is some utility to metals but as far as it representing the value of a barrel of pickles, what difference does it make if it is metal or paper?

You've said it better than I could.

George Soros (not without fault, him) pointed out that without debt, money would not exist at all! I was a little startled when I read that, but thinking about it, I really can't make much of an argument.
You?:confused:

Tecate
04-01-2011, 11:14 AM
The problem I have with the argument is that it seems you are just replacing one arbitrary place holder of value with another.

Granted, there is some utility to metals but as far as it representing the value of a barrel of pickles, what difference does it make if it is metal or paper?
There's nothing wrong with paper as long as it is backed by precious metals. There is nothing "magical" about gold and silver other than the fact that they have been a great tool throughout history to keep the siren song of money printing in check. No one has found anything better for this purpose. Is an unlimited supply of paper dollars an unlimited supply of wealth? What about an unlimited number of 1's and 0's in a computer database that represents wealth or value? What is really there? Anything tangible?

Tecate
04-01-2011, 11:18 AM
You've said it better than I could.

George Soros (not without fault, him) pointed out that without debt, money would not exist at all! I was a little startled when I read that, but thinking about it, I really can't make much of an argument.
You?:confused:
Griffin says that in Jekyll Island as well... If everyone paid back every single dollar owed, there would be no money whatsoever. If you have $200 dollars in your pocket, it represents $200 that somebody owes to someone somewhere.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-01-2011, 11:55 AM
Griffin says that in Jekyll Island as well... If everyone paid back every single dollar owed, there would be no money whatsoever. If you have $200 dollars in your pocket, it represents $200 that somebody owes to someone somewhere.

In essence, my theory of the balance of life.
In order for someone to have, someone else somewhere must have not. In order for someone to be happy, another has to be sad somewhere. They balance each other out.

Starbuck
04-01-2011, 12:01 PM
In essence, my theory of the balance of life.
In order for someone to have, someone else somewhere must have not. In order for someone to be happy, another has to be sad somewhere. They balance each other out.
I see where you're coming from, but it tramples on my philosophy a bit in that I believe happiness and contentment are much the same and available to nearly all of us. But I do see where you're coming from.