Money Belongs to the People
Not the International Bankers
By Mark Anderson
overriding question on the Federal Reserve is: “What should we do with this
intruder that seized the House of Representatives’ constitutional duty to
create money and regulate its value?” As AFP reported on page 2 in its Oct. 25,
2010 edition (No. 43), several commentators and activists, at this 100-year
mark since the Fed’s initial conception on Jekyll Island,
are considering how to operate in the post-Fed years.
has focused extensively on monetary reform, finding that there are two schools
of thought on what to do with the Federal Reserve System: Nationalize it, which
may preserve some of its components; or dissolve it, leaving nothing behind.
Paoletta, who heads the Citizens
that teaches about banking and debt, was especially firm when contacted by AFP.
view is that it should be abolished—every square inch,” he said. “Get Congress
to instead create a [public] monetary commission that directly reports to the
House.” He clarified that the federal government, instead of borrowing money
from private bankers at interest, would create its own money directly
interest-free—“at plus or minus 3 percent of the gross national product.” That
commission would oversee the government’s money creation.
money supply in this scenario, according to Paoletta, would be “inflationproof”
since care would be taken to make sure the supply does not outpace the quantity
of goods and services to a degree that would trigger monetary inflation.
into the parallel question of whether a world without the Fed would include a
gold standard, Paoletta stated, “They control the gold,” referring to
the global banking cartel’s ability to meddle with the supply and value of gold
that would back the currency.
Monetary Institute (AMI) leader Steven Zarlenga has told AFP on more than one
occasion that nationalization is the way to go. He once said that
nationalization is essentially the same as “ending” the Fed. Annual End the Fed rallies started across the
country in November 2008.An actual end the Fed bill (HR 2755) was brought forth
earlier in 2008 but died for lack of congressional cosponsors. Different
versions of bills to simply audit the Fed soon followed. Finally, a limited Fed audit made it into a 2010 Wall Street
reform bill that Obama did sign into law.
Michigan U.S. Taxpayers Party chairman Dennis James said that, with nationalization,
“You could end up with the same thing with a different name.”
idea of nationalizing the Fed has a certain “slickness” about it that he finds
warned that, conceivably, the Fed’s Board of Governors, the creation of which
was a small compromise by the Fed’s founders to win public confidence in the early
days, would stay intact under nationalization.
Regarding the Fed’s fate, former AFP staffer Tony Blizzard, responding
to a query, replied that only government should create money—and stop there. “[Keep]
government out of the banking business and banking out of the money-creation
business,” he said. As for either
nationalizing or dissolving the Fed, Blizzard responded, “Neither. Let it
continue to operate but only as a common bank with new rules.When either the
government or the banks have the ability to both create money and loan it, you
are asking for the trouble we have today.”
Paoletta said that nationalization means the Fed, although presumably weakened,
“would become part of the government.” He views this option as too risky because
“the monster” still lives.
Jacques, a social credit monetary reform advocate, called nationalization “a
smokescreen,” adding, “The U.S. would just own the building with the same old people
(private bankers) doing the same thing. Every time they talk about
nationalizing the banks, the money supply is still not put in the service of the
people. The money belongs to the people; government is only supposed to be the
fall 2010 article in the independent British newspaper, the UK Column, noted
that the private Bank of England, established in 1694, was “nationalized” in
1946. “The bank lost some of its operational independence, with regard to
monetary policy, but it still continued to operate as an independent commercial
bank with customers other than the British government. In 1998, its full independence
was returned to it,” the Column explained. The Bank of England “still operates in secret”—and
has other commercial interests such as heads of state and foreign governments—“as
it always has,” the Column continued. “It is not accountable to the
taxpayer in any way.”
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the deputy editor for American Free Press.
Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events
they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as
story leads. Email him at at email@example.com.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.
Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .
Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 47, Nov. 22, 2010)