Friday, 1 July 2011

Myths of the Federal Reserve

There are two oft-repeated myths about the USA Federal Reserve. Here they are, along with their rebuttal:

Myth 1: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.

Hypothesis: Federal Reserve Notes, the currency we use in the United States, are evidence of the debt of the U.S. government to the Federal Reserve. The central bank charges the government interest for this currency, thereby diverting billions of dollars from the Treasury that could be used for other things. The government could print its own money and avoid the Fed's interest.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury.
----------

Myth 2: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.

Hypothesis: When the government runs a budget deficit, it borrows the money from the Fed at interest. If the Fed did not charge interest or if the government simply printed its own interest-free currency, then we would have a balanced budget and no national debt.


Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.
-------------

Even Ron Paul makes use of the second claim, as evidenced here.

These myths are ubiquitous, a fact which is an indictment of a whole slew of supposed "critics".

Amusingly, much of the criticism of the US Fed concerns the FED's private status. It's an amusing criticism coming from people who otherwise extol the virtues of private ownership. Such people oppose regulation, government 'interference', etc. Except over the FED? Usually such people are zealots who hold private ownership has an almost mystical character to produce 'good' outcomes. But not at the FED? They're self-styled libertarians who want everyone to be 'free'.....except banks. Regulation is bad, see....except for banks etc.

It's not dissimilar in character to their position on international relations - for example, the UN is a supposed arm of NWO globalist tyranny blah blah blah, at least until it passes a resolution condemning Israel whereby the UN suddenly transforms into the most principled and highest authority of International Law......

Anyway, MYTHS.

One simple thing to consider is to whom does the American Government owe its debt?

According to Wiki -
As of January 2011, foreigners owned $4.45 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $9.49 trillion and 32% of the total debt of $14.1 trillion. The largest holders were the central banks of China, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The share held by foreign governments has grown over time, rising from 25% of the public debt in 2007 and 13% in 1988.
So, a large part of the debt is foreign owned - which alone undermines the myths mentioned above.

Or are we to conclude that the supposed NWO-globalist-bank-tyranny-thing is coming out of China, Japan and UK? Someone better tell Alex Jones?

Gerry Rough's archived website on this stuff is here.

168 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

Real Truth Online said...

LOL. Funny thing is, many "facts" on the site you got this shit from have been debunked. In FACT, I MENTION these debunked FACTS in a story of mine in March that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED. I mention in my story the EXACT SAME GUY who came up with the bullshit on the site you linked to. His name is Ed Flaherty and he's a FRAUD.

In fact, Flaherty even says THIS under one of his points:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.

Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

He even ADMITS under the FACTS that the meeting DID take place and it WAS a conspiracy in SECRET. He blows it off by suggesing that, just because it didnt pass Congess, it wasn't a secret conspiracy!! LOL

Here's my story where I present the debunking of Flaherty---a story that you IGNORED.

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2011/03/
in-order-to-disprove-
glenn-beck-about_28.html

That story I wrote was in response to Dave Neiwert's article criticizing Glenn Beck for believing in the secret conspiracy, but there's TRUTH in what Beck was saying, and Neiwert's article angered many left wingers on Crooks and Liars----which is why YOU FUCKING IGNORED MY STORY, YOU FUCKING FRAUD!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry the psycho in full-on spam mode.

This is why you are banned, not because you offer some special information that needs silencing.

That, and the fact you're the most obnoxious berk I have ever had the misfortune to countenance.

carry on making an idiot of yourself....what do i care....

Real Truth Online said...

I had posted it ONCE, you DELETED IT. I posted it 3 more times and you DELETED it, so now it's posted MANY times. It's not spamming if you keep DELETING the comment.

Now, address my comment. ADDRESS the fact that I already DEBUNKED the bullshit you posted today in a story I did in MARCH that you IGNORED!!!!!

the_last_name_left said...

what has your stupid view about Jekyll Island got to do with the fact of whether the FED returns any surplus to the US Treasury?

Nothing.

Spam on....

Real Truth Online said...

Read my new story on you...it's priceless.

the_last_name_left said...

I'm sure it is .....fabulous.

Show it to your psychiatrist, see what she makes of it?

the_last_name_left said...

Another fallacy, one which Rivero seems to believe, is that central banks are all private, like the FED. They're not - but that doesn't stop Rivero making a deal out of it as if they were.

The FED is more peculiar because of its private nature than it is normal. And it's private for a very good, particularly American reason - it is supposed to prevent government 'playing politics' with the economy by making it independent. And in America it takes a private form - big surprise?

In somewhat similar fashion, the UK's central bank BoE was made 'independent' by George Brown, though it isn't privately-owned and used to be even more a part of the government itself - which led to constant political 'interference', as some see it.

The left recognises the 'independence' of central banks as a capitulation. Central banks should be under government/democratic control.

But having an independent, even private central bank makes sense if one buys into the whole markets and private property and enterprise thing. Why not submit the financing of government to the strictures of the marketplace? And why not have private interests at its helm? How independent do you want it?

One can do it differently.....like China, say. Or Cuba. Or the former Soviet Union.....

But that's a funny argument to hear from supposed libertarians and uber free-marketeers.

Real Truth Online said...

NOTHING you just said overshadows the FACT that I wrote a story in March that you IGNORED, and in the story I showed that G. Edward Griffin already debunked Ed Flaherty YEARS AGO, and you post a link to Flaherty's bullshit AS IF IT'S A NEW FUCKING REVELATION. It's NOT. It's OLD DEBUNKED BULLSHIT. The guy even fucking ADMITTED in one of his points that the creation of the Fed WAS a secret conspiracy!!! He ADMITTED there was a secret meeting!!!

I'm two steps ahead of you bub, as always.

Real Truth Online said...

"The left recognises the 'independence' of central banks as a capitulation. Central banks should be under government/democratic control."

All of the founding fathers, except maybe for Alexander Hamilton were AGAINST central banks. How do you justify your above statement in light of the fact that Thomas Jefferson, no doubt the greatest president ever, said:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."???

Don't give me one of your long-winded bullshit responses...just ANSWER my question.

the_last_name_left said...

I don't see what the founders' have to do with it.

But, to answer the question, the left (v generally) believes the economy should be more rational, and under wider democratic control.

Which has meant the left has tended to seek greater control, the right less. At its crudest, regulation vs deregulation.

In central banking too, perhaps especially. Attempts to make central banks more independent is a success of business/finance/the right.....it's a sort of built-in protection from any leftwing policies. Greater 'independence' helps prevent leftwing governments from altering basic financial policy, or to stop politicans 'printing money'. It removes central finance from the political domain - which is exactly what it's supposed to do. It's supposed to give greater stability, promote good economic conditions. But that means good business/banking conditions, as opposed to any other, like full employment, say.

The independence of the European bank, and its financial straitjacket imposed on Europe is perhaps a good example - a whole economic and political orthodoxy is locked into such conditions. Indeed, governments were not allowed to run deficits beyond a certain percentage...and were supposed to be fined if they did so.

Some saw it as a loss of political and economic freedom - possibly justified by wider goal of EUROPE project.

Such conditions mean seeking policy of full employment rather than low inflation would be impossible. So it's a big win for 'business', finance, private enterprise, capital, and a defeat for the left - less accountability, less control, reduced scope of action etc.

---

Anyway, that's all irrelevant to the actual FACT of whether the FED transfers its earnings back to the Government Treasury, which it DOES.

Whatever Flaherty or anyone else has to say about conspiracies surrounding institution of FED is irrelevant to the facts of whether the FED returns its earnings to the Treasury.

Separate issue.

You think that because you have a different opinion on Jekyll Island et al that it makes Flaherty "wrong" about it....and everything else.

We already know you cannot distinguish your own opinion from fact. But no matter, Jekyll Island is irrelvant here - what is at issue is whether "interest is charged on the currency we use". It isn't.

the_last_name_left said...

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

-----------

No private property under communism, no private banks. So, the situation couldn't arise. All central banking functions would be under democratic control, and policy would be set by the masses.

A left criticism of the political reforms - US and French revolutions, english civil war etc - were that they only achieved a political reform, not an economic one. Independent central banks can be seen as part of that - to prevent 'interference', to prevent 'running the printing presses', to prevent economic democracy and to maintain conditions suitable to business / capital as opposed to Labour.

rah rah rah.

the_last_name_left said...

Jefferson' workers couldn't be homeless under communism.

Rather than having a housing market in boom and bust, and the banks messing with mortgages and all the rest of the speculation and financial shenanigans we'd have a proper housing policy, based on need and subject to (good) planning. No private bank holding the deeds, no private landlord threatening eviction, etc. Guaranteed work, building houses....whatever. Work need be shared out, no-one should be without work, unless they choose - which they should be presumed to be entitled to do.

How to pay for it? simply print the money, and tax it back. It's only paper, after all.

Strikes me that the promises of the industrial age have all been commandeered by the few -- reducing employees to achieve the same output is a good thing, yet workers suffer to unemployment, so it appears to be against their interests. The wreckers, the Luddites.

So, when TVs can be made by fewer people on lower wages, it's a net efficiency to the system as a whole. A good thing. However, it's workers that pay the price and whom receive little if any direct benefit - unemployment for the worker, but increased profits for the few. the capitalists.

The problem can most easily be seen by imagining that we have achieved the full automation of all production. Success! The abolition of "work". But who is to buy all the production, when there are no workers? And what is to become of the former workers? Such a situation implies socialism.

Real Truth Online said...

"I don't see what the founders' have to do with it."

And that's what makes you a bona fide dumbass.

Did you even BOTHER reading my March story? Did you bother reading G. Edward Griffin's debunking of Flaherty?

Answer this main question:

Why did you IGNORE then [and are STILL ignoring] my March story on the Fed?

Hmmmmm???

And by the way, I asked you NOT to give me one of your long-winded bullshit responses. So, what do you do? You give a long-winded bullshit response!!

the_last_name_left said...

yes, very good Larry.


You don't want to make sense, up to you.

You don't want to respect the fact that I offer you a view, fair enough.

What makes you think you can demand answers whilst addressing nothing that's put you, only you know.

There's clearly no point in any conversation with you, L. there is no conversation with you.

the_last_name_left said...

Asshole Blogger Ignores A Story I Did In March on the Fed That Debunks Crapola He Posted TODAY
---------------

Jesus, get a life Larry.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, you will perhaps be interested (disgusted?) to read an article by Gerry Rough, the fed conspiracy debunker you found so hard to track down.

He writes


--"But Beck, for all of his earthly and heavenly wonders, has unwittingly unleashed something into the Conservative movement that is foreign to the faith, alien to the authentic conservative and ultimately destructive in its scope. I speak, of course, of the guest he had on his television program a week ago Friday last, on March 25th. The guest on that night’s program was none other than G. Edward Griffin, author of the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. Griffin, for the initiated, is a long time author and commentator from the John Birch Society, whose conspiratorial essays about a left wing plot to destroy America, the Constitution, and everything good and right have up until now been mostly unfamiliar to many conservatives. Although the so called New World Order conspiracy theory has been circulating in conservative circles under the radar for the last couple of generations, it hasn’t gained too much acceptance except in the End Times Bible Prophecy movement where it has become now accepted by many as a realistic theory of the End Times. Most conservatives have heard the idea, but often dismiss it out of hand. Conspiracy theories like the New World Order have never really had the cache of serious thinkers. Too many Conservatives have, until now, simply winced at the thought that something not spoken out in the open ... would gain momentum and actually catch on in mainstream Conservative circles.

the_last_name_left said...

continuing.......


---".....conspiracy theories like the New World Order are foreign to the conservative movement, and that it was none other than William F. Buckley himself, the father of the modern conservative movement, who kicked the Birchers out in the 1960s. Robert Welch and his conspiracy theories were anathema to serious thinkers, and Buckley knew that.

Buckley knew back then that conspiracy theories are hopelessly fallacious at best. And now, not long after Buckley’s death, Beck has unwittingly unleashed destruction on the movement that he himself has helped to bring back to life of late. I was shocked and horrified when I heard what Griffin was about to do that fateful night, especially since I myself had written extensively about him in the late 1990s. Back then, I started a web site called floodlight.org, and wrote then a number of articles that exposed Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island work as hopelessly riddled with flagrant distortion at best and desperately fraudulent at worst. Griffin’s conspiracy theory was exposed as well by a Ph. D. student named Edward Flaherty. Together he and I laid waste to the entirety of Griffin’s conspiracy theory. And yet Glenn Beck parades his work as serious? Are you kidding me? Do you know what you have done Glenn Beck? Are you aware that you have unleashed foreign elements into the conservative movement once again? These are not the thinkers you claim they are, Mr. Beck. They have been shown conclusively by myself and others as something far less than a real conservative organization with serious credentials.

For the rest of us who are serious about our Christian faith, and as Conservatives and Tea Party activists, it is time Glenn Beck be excoriated for what he has unleashed on the rest of us. William F. Buckley knew that the Conservative movement would never survive if this kind of fallacious thinking were allowed to continue without answer. He knew and fought for the modern Conservative movement, and he called foolishness what it really is. Conspiracy theories have no place in civilized society, no place within the Christian faith, and no place within the Tea Party and Conservative movements.----<<<<



Well.....indeed.

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/what-glenn-beck-hath-unleashed

the_last_name_left said...

Working linkhere

SolomonKane said...

Nice blog the_last_name_left. I've been following it for a few months now.

Very sharp and accurate observations on the "libertarian patriot truth" movement. Strangely most of it's adherants can't see what you see so clearly and even more strangely neither can most of it's natural political adversaries.

I reached similar conclusions as you after participating in it for a few years.

Thank god I got out well before the rise of the tea party and associated characters like Glenn Beck. I missed having to look ridiculous in the town square protesting "socialism" while wearing a tricorner hat along with loaded weapon.

Real Truth Online said...

LOL, I mentioned Gerry Rough in my March article TOO, but being that you DONT READ MY ARTICLES, you wouldnt know that, would you?? Again, I'm two steps ahead of you, as usual.

I linked to the patriotactionnetwork in my article TOO. Again, I'm two steps ahead of you.

You REFUSED to answer my question [what else is new?]

Why did you IGNORE my story in March????? Because you had all the answers ALL along??? LOL.

I want an answer, dipshit.

Real Truth Online said...

Nice try TLNL, beginning another account titled SolomonKane just so you can come to you OWN BLOG and praise yourself?? I just looked at SolomonKane's profile. Says it started in July 2011, and has two views. It was JUST STARTED. What are the odds that someone JUST begins his account and finds YOUR blog instantly and replies to your bullshit while IGNORING MY comments???

I will tell you......a million to one. SolomonKane is yet ANOTHER sock puppet of yours. REALLY fucking SAD that you have to CREATE accounts to add "supposed" readers to your blog!!!

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real Truth Online said...

Heres the section where I mention Gerry Rough in my March story.

"Neiwert then says Griffin has been completely debunked by some historian named Gerry Rough. Neiwert posts 3 links to a series of stories that he claims "show how fraudulent Griffin’s text is", without actually posting any of it within his article, which would have been pretty damning to actually include in his story debunked Griffin texts. Naturally, Neiwert refuses to do that, but simply relies on his readers to click the links and find out for themselves. Why should his readers actually do the work when Neiwert himself doesn’t?

One thing I discovered when researching information about Rough was that Neiwerts 3 links seem to be among very very few websites that this man’s material can actually be seen on. In fact, I found no others. One website, that apparently is supposed to be Rough’s own site, "In Pursuit of Reason", is gone. Mention of that site is here, but when you click it, no site is there. Another mention of the site is here, at publiceye.org. Again, when you click it…no site.

In fact, the very 3 links that Neiwert posts of the Gerry Rough writings take you to the archives of a site called floodlight.org, but the floodlight.org site itself is non-existent. Once again, when you go to floodlight.org…nothing.

Another important fact that Neiwert conveniently omits from his story is that in Rough’s "debunking" of Griffin, he says this after posting an excerpt from Griffin’s book:

"There are two errors that stand out in this citation. First, the citation is false. Griffin falsely cites Herman E. Krooss, Documentary history of Banking and Currency in the United States, volume III, pp. 190, 191. Volume III starts on page 1617, and pages 190 and 191 have nothing to do with the subject. Please see the update to this."

When you click where it says "see update", Rough says this:

"Apparently, there were mistakes made by both Griffin and myself on this one. Griffin's mistake was still wrongly citing his source. On page 346, Griffin cites Krooss, p. 190-191. This is correct. In Griffin's bibliography, he cites only volume III, both 1969 and 1983 versions. This is what lead me off in the wrong direction. The page number was cited correctly, but the volume number was cited incorrectly. The correct volume is volume 2, not volume 3.

My error did not stop there, however. When I looked at the source, I only looked at the 1969 version. I should have looked at the 1983 version as well, just to make sure of my facts before drawing a premature conclusion. As it turned out, the 1983 version has two completely different editions: The paperback edition and the hardback edition. The hardback edition would have looked identical to the 1969 hardback edition, which I assumed correctly. The paperback edition has four volumes, just like the hardback edition. But the page numbers begin with page 1 at the beginning of each volume, unlike the hardback edition, whose page numbers continue sequentially with each volume. This explains the obvious disparity between the page numbers of Griffin's citation and mine. While I am not proud of my error, I am only too happy to point out and admit my errors where appropriate."

This begs the question: How many other errors did Rough commit that he did NOT catch?

Real Truth Online said...

continued....

Neiwert then mentions that Media Matters "has the complete rundown on Griffin" and links to a Media Matters page that lists several short stories about some of Griffin’s beliefs. Neiwert fails to tell his readers that not one story on the page offers a single refutation of Griffin’s beliefs. Hmmm. I wonder why.

Neiwert laughingly says this, "Another terrific debunking of far-right Federal Reserve theories generally, including Griffin's texts, was provided by Edward Flaherty at Public Eye." Not only does Neiwert fail to mention what constituted the usage of the word "another", he lies and says that Flaherty’s "debunking" included Griffin’s texts. When you click the link he calls "the first part", you will see 6 references at the bottom of that page. The fourth reference is Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, but nowhere within the text on that page is any Griffin texts found. So, why is the reference to Griffin’s book listed under reference 4? God only knows. But that does not stop lying Dave Neiwert to claim that it included "Griffin’s texts", does it?

Since Neiwert is not interested in facts or truth telling, it is only here at Real Truth that you can find that G. Edward Griffin has debunked Edward Flaherty, and not the other way around. At the site freedomforceinternational.org, Griffin lays out his responses to Flaherty’s supposed "debunking" of his book. Oh yeah, by the way, this is yet another thing Neiwert omitted from his story."

Real Truth Online said...

Hey douchebag, why were you at a site called www.newipnow.com before coming to my site? Did you actually think it would stop me from knowing youre on my site?

I laugh!!!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry said:

"Heres the section where I mention Gerry Rough in my March story."
------------

Yes, and the article by Gerry Rough I directed you to was published in April.

Ok?

APRIL. that's after March. Capiche?

I don't direct you to it in anticipation of changing your mind about anything.

You found him hard to track down, apparently. But he clearly has your measure. Good.

Real Truth Online said...

"Yes, and the article by Gerry Rough I directed you to was published in April.

Ok?

APRIL. that's after March. Capiche?"

And your newly found revelation about Flaherty and Rough was published YESTERDAY. That's AFTER MY story in March...and you IGNORED my story in March. That would make me ahead of you in the ballgame huh? Capiche?

What's your point in saying Rough's article was published in April and that I "could not track him down"?? I simply said that NEIWERT'S links posted in his story took me to NOTHING. My point was simply: Where did Neiwert get his bullshit from if the links HE PROVIDED takes you to NOTHING?

I wrote my story on March 28. Rough's article was published on April 3. So, how could I have FOUND anything written by Rough if he wrote his article SIX days after I wrote mine?

God, you're a fuckstick.

STILL ignoring my questions?? Shocker. Here they are again:

"Why did you IGNORE my story in March????? Because you had all the answers ALL along??? LOL."

Real Truth Online said...

Your point in telling me that Rough's article was AFTER mine HURTS you. If he wrote his article BEFORE me, THEN you'd have a valid point---at least in suggesting that his stuff COULD be found. But I wasn't making the point that just ANY of his stuff couldn't be found. I was siply saying the links THAT NEIWERT PROVIDED took me to DEAD ENDS.

The point I was making wasn't necessarily directed at ROUGH, but NEIWERT. It was NEIWERT'S error, but since you don't read JACK SHIT that I write, how would you know?

DICKLICKER.

Real Truth Online said...

You ignored this too:

"Hey douchebag, why were you at a site called www.newipnow.com before coming to my site? Did you actually think it would stop me from knowing youre on my site?

I laugh!!!"

Real Truth Online said...

Oh and another thing sparky...why were you THEN and still NOW AFRAID to post comments under my March story???

I'm all ears.

the_last_name_left said...

I ignored your article? I don't remember reading it, does that count?

What was I supposed to have done? Criticised it at the time? Or made reference to it somewhere? Or both? Or something else as well? I don't know.

Regardless, your position and its flaws are clearly identified by Rough.

You're fine with the Birchers.....you are a Bircher?

You were even drawn to instinctively promote Willis Carto until you realised quite what it meant.

Myself and Mr Rough are poles apart, and yet we both share the same view of you and yours. Interesting, I think.

Real Truth Online said...

"I ignored your article? I don't remember reading it, does that count?"

I already know you dont read ANY of my articles EXCEPT the ones you THINK you have answers for [but you turn out WRONG every time]. My March story you ignored because it was about your buddy Neiwert getting BLASTED by people who LIKE him and read his articles often. THATS why you ignored it. How could you defend Neiwert when he was getting his nuts handed to him by his OWN followers about something Glenn Beck did???

"What was I supposed to have done? Criticised it at the time? Or made reference to it somewhere? Or both? Or something else as well? I don't know."

The point is NOT whether you should have commented on it THEN per se [which I just explained why you didnt], but you have ignored it STILL in these past few days when I gave you the link to read something I wrote THREE months ago that debunks these NEW revelations you're having NOW about the Fed!!

You're just NOW discovering Rough and Flaherty when MONTHS ago I wrote about them and thoroughly debunked their bullshit THEN, and you SUDDENLY mention Rough and Flaherty as if I NEVER EVER heard of them and as if you're TEACHING me something. Are you on acid?

"You're fine with the Birchers.....you are a Bircher?"

Funny, I mentioned Birchers in my March article TOO and listed their core beliefs----NONE of which are nutty. This is ANOTHER reason why you IGNORE my March article and are AFRAID like a scared little girl to comment under it. You can't refute anything I said about Birchers---so, you IGNORE it.

I LOVE how, ONCE AGAIN, you IGNORED 99% of my last 5 posts and STILL are ignoring my questions.

You have all the answers, right?? So, why on Earth would you IGNORE ANY question I ask?? Yet, you CONTINUALLY ignore questions.

Real Truth Online said...

SURELY if my March article is bullshit as you claim, then you MUST be able to EASILY debunk G. Edward Griffin's responses to Flaherty's stances right????

RIGHT????

And yet, I have heard not ONE PEEP from you concerning my March story THEN OR NOW.

Why can't you debunk G. Edward Griffin????

Hmmmmmmmmmm???????????

the_last_name_left said...

It is all debunked - as the work of a fraud. Griffin is unreliable and a very poor researcher or simply dishonest. Take your pick.

Go visit the link I provided?

The fact is Larry, you have totally failed to stand-up your claim that "interest is charged on the currency" etc.

Just as with everything else, you believe whatever you want to. You repeat the same errors over everything. Up to you whether you continue doing so or not, only you can decide.

@Solomon Kane. Thanks for kind words.....but Ezra Pound? eh?

Eustace Mullins used to visit Pound in hospital? And Mullins is a source for much of the FED stuff? McCarthy's assistant too? And close to Nazism for 50 years?

Odd bunch, no?

Real Truth Online said...

"It is all debunked - as the work of a fraud. Griffin is unreliable and a very poor researcher or simply dishonest."

Ahhhh but yet you have NEVER EVER posted ANY of Griffin's words on your main page OR your comment threads debunking him huh?? You are scared shitless to comment on my blog under my March story about Flaherty and Rough and how Griffin debunked those two.

You just simply have to SAY THE WORDS that Griffin is debunked and it must be so??? You're a goddamned fool.

If he is debunked, PROVE IT. Post HIS WORDS on here and PROVE it. Re-post portions of MY words in my March story and debunk me. I noticed that when I posted the portions of my March story in this thread, you completely IGNORED it [naturally].

Better yet, do a story on your main page on how Griffin is debunked and then post the refutations. Do a story refuting MY March story!

You do NONE OF THESE THINGS because you CAN'T. The links you provided from Flaherty and Rough have been debunked----REMEMBER???...I DID A STORY IN MARCH DEBUNKING THEM??? REMEMBER??? The links also say NOTHING about Griffin!

Griffin has debunked them already but you REFUSE to post Griffin's words and you REFUSE to post portions of my March story on here because you KNOW goddamned well you CANNOT debunk my story OR Griffin. If you think you can---THEN DO IT, asshole!

By the way....I love how you IGNORED my brilliant post under your Ron Paul/fascism story where I posted my mock dialogue of Ron Paul and Don Black. Guess you're afraid to post anything under that ad look foolish huh? LOL

And for the love of god, please stop acting like SolomonKane is a different person. He's YOU and you fucking know it. His account was JUST started in July 2011 and he has like 3 hits. It's YOU. It's pretty fucking sad that you have to CREATE fake people to "agree" with you.

Real Truth Online said...

"You repeat the same errors over everything. Up to you whether you continue doing so or not, only you can decide."

Ahhh, you mean the errors that you REFUSE to post under my March story??? You mean the errors you REFUSE to post under this thread?? You mean THOSE errors??

What a fucking TWIT you are. It feels so goddamned good to keep continually winning with you. A "TROOFER" keeps kicking your fucking ass and it feels GREAT. That must make your blood boil.

the_last_name_left said...

nutter

the_last_name_left said...

The John Birch Society:

"Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to western civilization, writing "both the Greek and the Roman civilizations did perish of the cancer of collectivism, and the civilization of Western Europe is doing so today." This view was shared by many conservatives of the day, and had been developed by such conservative intellectuals as Hayek. The ingredient that Welch added was an "uncompromising conspiracy theory of world events, one that blamed domestic rather than foreign enemies for the spread of communism," as Diamond summarized. Although critical of Oswald Spengler's intellectual snobbery, Welch agreed with Spengler's thesis in Decline of the West, of a "cyclical theory of cultures," but Welch argued that western European civilization was being prematurely put at risk by a conspiracy to promote the decay of collectivism.

According to the JBS theory, liberals provide the cover for the gradual process of collectivism, therefore many liberals and their allies must actually be secret communist traitors whose ultimate goal is to replace the nations of western civilization with one-world socialist government. "There are many stages of` welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general," wrote Welch, "but communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction." A core tenet of the JBS was that the US is a republic not a democracy, and that collectivism has eroded that distinction. That this distinction was largely a semantic trick--used to cover the essential autocratic elitism of Welch and the JBS philosoph--was examined by Lester DeKoster, a conservative Christian who warned of the JBS anti-democratic agenda in his monograph titled The Citizen and the John Birch Society.

The JBS concern that collectivism, statism, and internationalism would be ushered in through a subversive communist conspiracy naturally evolved into the JBS "Get US out of UN!" campaign, which alleged in 1959 that the "Real nature of [the] UN is to build One World Government (New World Order)." Behind much of this concern was opposition to communism not only on economic, ideological, and pragmatic geopolitical grounds, but also because it was seen as a godless conspiracy. The influence of fundamentalist Christian beliefs on Birch doctrine are often obscured by the group's ostensible secular orientation. As Welch put it, "This is a world-wide battle, between light and darkness; between freedom and slavery; between the spirit of Christianity and the spirit of anti-Christ for the souls and bodies of men."
-------------

Funny you say there's no left or right, Larry, when you're an instinctive Bircher.

Anti-communism and conspiracism. But there's no left/right. Sure.

the_last_name_left said...

The Kochs were behind John Birch Society.

The Kochs billions finance all the shit - all the NWO rubbish, anti-global warming, anti-communism, everything Larry and Co promote.

I'd fingered them as the original source for all the finance before. Not good.

http://youtu.be/6g78ZKT-uMs

the_last_name_left said...

Though not according to ernie - he says Birchers were not built on Koch money.

Koch was a board member? A founding member?

the_last_name_left said...

With the John Birch Society and Cleon Skousen leading the way, the Radical Right increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, liberals, and Jews being the driving force behind an “international communist conspiracy”.

Throughout its first decade of existence, the John Birch Society led a campaign against the Civil Rights Act and called for the impeachment of Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren after he wrote the majority decision in Brown v. Board of Education. They even called for the disbanding of the United Nations.

Robert Welch then began labeling Eisenhower as a communist for not being the puppet President they desired.

This outrageous charge prompted the intellectuals of the party like William F. Buckley to renounce the group outright. An early friend of Welch, Buckley realized that his friend and the John Birch Society were extreme right wingers and he regarded the attacks on Eisenhower and liberals as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the group. Buckley would go on to found the National Review, and Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/06/30/an-american-stain-glenn-beck-and-the-radical-right-or-good-riddance-glenn-beck/
-------------------


Indeed.

SolomonKane said...

Of course this paranoia about the evils of "collectivism" destroying civilization is a nice piece of self fulflling circular reasoning isn't it?

Collectivism is a prerequisite for there even being a civilization so of course you will find it, loosely speaking, where ever there is society, whether on the rise or the decline because without it there would be NO civilization.

Another quality of the charge of collectivism is that it's unclear EXACTLY what it means. It's definition is so flexible as to be useless. National healthcare is collectivism, but a militia is "patriotism" though are dependant on the aggragation of people to exist. The word is subject to constant revision and redefinition.

Perfect for an Orwellian RW Utopia...eh?

SolomonKane said...

About the JBS and the fear mongering about the "Freemasons, Illuminati, liberals, and Jews" two things must be said:

1. They didn't originate any of this thinking...they inherited the whole cloth from the WWII era fascists. Mussolini, Hitler and Franco all went on about the same stuff as well as their sympathizers in the US (Henry Ford, German-American Bund, Liberty Lobby etc). What they did do was clean it up a little by removing the overt antisemitism and tying the ideas back to a twisted notion of the orginal patriotism of the nations founding.

2. Like the paradox of "libertarian" angst over private central banking when in fact their actual position is in favor of an entire private strong central government, the JBS effectively operates as exactly the kind of secret society that they claim to be defending against. Secret meetings, secret cells, secretive pyramidal structure, preparations for armed action, hidden agendas, deceptive propaganda apparatus..on and on it goes.

the_last_name_left said...

"Collectivism is a prerequisite for there even being a civilization ..."

haha good point!

and points 1 and 2.....well said!

the_last_name_left said...

@solomonkane

I was thinking perhaps you were a creation of Larry aka RealTruthOnline, but he'd never write what you did. So... ;)

He suggested you were a creation of mine, so I started suspecting you might be a creation of his. hehe. Whoops.

the_last_name_left said...

And thanks for kind words solomonkane. Forgive my initial response - I've just become suspicious of anyone who posts on this stuff. I'm sure you understand. ;)

SolomonKane said...

Nahhh...I'm very real. I mean at least I think so..I don't know maybe I have been brought into existence by the shear force of will of conspiratorial super double triple think.

Well even if that's the case then I'm pretty sure that Larry didn't create me. I'm probably the internet spirit embodiment of Alex Jones' infrequently excercised sense of guilt....

SolomonKane said...

You're welcome. I like this blog..along with "Leaving Alex Jonestown". You two have been right on the money for a while now. It's nice to see someone on the internet with some sense.

I'll probably try to drop in and comment every so often.

About Larry (RTO). Judging from his posts here, he's a prime example of why I don't spend too much time interacting with "truthers" anymore. There is no tolerance whatsoever for anypoint of view that contradicts their dogma in any way. If you challenge it then they instantly go into bully mode. The only thing amusing about it is that when their not attacking outsiders they go after each other with equal zeal.

At the end of the day, who did 9-11 doesn't even really matter to them. What does matter is who they can scapegoat to explain away the failings of their own misanthropic lifestyle. They pretty much all have that in common.

And that, sir, is some "real" truth that you can take to the bank. Alex Jones and Glenn Beck certainly have.

SolomonKane said...

TLBG....there's been many good posts on your blog..but my favorite was this one:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2011/06/25-years-ago-today.html

Excellent taste!

I suspect that before it's over most truthers will know exactly how Joan of Arc felt as the flames rose and her iPod full of Prisonplanet MP3s started to melt.

Real Truth Online said...

"I was thinking perhaps you were a creation of Larry aka RealTruthOnline, but he'd never write what you did. So... ;)

He suggested you were a creation of mine, so I started suspecting you might be a creation of his. hehe. Whoops."

Yeah, I would really create an account and say I agreed with YOU just so you'd think Solomon was a creation of MINE?? And you call ME the nutter??

"About Larry (RTO). Judging from his posts here, he's a prime example of why I don't spend too much time interacting with "truthers" anymore. There is no tolerance whatsoever for anypoint of view that contradicts their dogma in any way. If you challenge it then they instantly go into bully mode...."

Name ONE time you challenged me asshole. ONE. I don't attack you for NOT AGREEING with me, I attack you for IGNORING my questions CONSTANTLY and you claiming you DID answer them. ADDRESSING/ACKNOWLEDGING a question is not the SAME as ANSWERING it. You can disagree with me all day long if you want to, I don't care. But it's your TACTICS I attack and condemn....your constant ignoring of my questions, your ignoring my posts that provide GREAT points, your omission of the MAIN points I make in my stories/posts when you re-post quotes of mine. Your false claims that you despise profanity when you cuss more than I do---but you claim you hate profanity to use it as a smokescreen to IGNORE the excellent points I make.

"The only thing amusing about it is that when their not attacking outsiders they go after each other with equal zeal."

You just contradicted yourself in the SAME paragraph. First you claimed that "There is no tolerance whatsoever for any point of view that contradicts their dogma in any way"---THEN you claim that "when their [wrong word: you meant "they're"] not attacking outsiders they go after each other with equal zeal".

HUH????? First you say we don't tolerate ANY point of view that contradicts our dogma in any way, THEN you say we go after our OWN with equal zeal?? Why would we go after our own unless they DID adopt a point of view contrary to our own point of view? You make NO SENSE whatsoever.

The ONLY reason I would go after my own is if they DID contradict my dogma and believe something I did NOT believe. Example: I have blasted Alex Jones on my site NUMEROUS times. You would call Alex Jones MY OWN would you not? Of course you would! In other words, on those occasions that I attacked Jones, I was NOT tolerating his point of view, so I blasted him on my site.

Why would we "go after our own with equal zeal" if we refused to tolerate different points of view??

You claim that truthers/conspiracists are all the SAME and we all believe the same way RIGHT?? So, isn't it true that when I attacked Jones on my site, I was expressing my disdain for his point of view?? Since I was expressing disdain for it, wouldn't that be PROOF that I attack my OWN?

Questions for you asshole:

1. When have YOU attacked YOUR OWN?

2. Name ONE time when you have attacked someone you SUPPORT most of the time?

3. Isn't it true that YOU ALSO fall under the category of "those who are intolerant of any point of view that contradicts their own"??? Or else, why do you attack Rivero so much??

Your entire site consists of stories that basically call everyone nuts because YOU DONT AGREE WITH THEM.

You attack EVERYONE who doesn't agree with you...but the BIG difference between your site and mine: I provide PROOF I'm right...you just call others NUTS and think it's true simply because you said it. Now answer my fucking questions [above].

Real Truth Online said...

"At the end of the day, who did 9-11 doesn't even really matter to them. What does matter is who they can scapegoat to explain away the failings of their own misanthropic lifestyle. They pretty much all have that in common."

Really? is that why you have not refute me ONCE??? Do you realize you have not refuted me ONE time? Not even ONE.

Sad.

STILL ignoring my excellent post under the Ron Paul/fascism story.

Still ignoring my March story.

LOL

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE. That's how The Last Fag Left handles stories he can't refute...ignore ignore ignore.

SolomonKane said...

quod erat demonstrandum

Real Truth Online said...

My posts above....IGNORED by The Last Cocksucker Left. Just as I said he would!! LOL

Real Truth Online said...

Are you not going to respond to my posts above---or to my 3 questions??? Let me guess...ignore ignore ignore once again???

the_last_name_left said...

I thought you directed your demand for answers at Solomon.

I attacked a Labour Government over Iraq war, and much else, even though I did what I could to help them get elected. And so what?

I attack Rivero, not because he holds a different opinion to mine (most people hold a different opinion to mine), but because of its hateful character, its dishonesty, its incoherence, its hypocrisy.....

Rivero is a crypto-nazi. And a liar. Objectively. That's why I criticise him.

People whom I disagree with politically - that'd be most people, in fact - I can tolerate. So long as they're honest, and straight (no, not in sexual orientation)

Nazism fails the test, big-time. obviously, no?

Whereas you, Larry, not only disagree with almost everybody, you seem to loathe everyone whom holds a different opinion.

Troofers, and peeps like yourself have a very strange and extreme attitude to others whom hold a different opinion. Your immediate response is to imagine they aren't aware of the same things you are.....you can't imagine that someone could simply take a different view, or that they're entitled to do so.

People don't simply disagree with you, you consider them enemies. And deluded, or liars. You seem to find it impossible to accept other people might genuinely believe differently to you, without having been misled, without suffering delusions, without having to lie......You seem to have a problem with that, as do all Troofer types, it seems. As solomon alluded to, I think.

I've certainly noticed what he said - you're a good example.

the_last_name_left said...

@ solomon

Queen is Dead? y, 25 years!! OMG.

I had tickets to what would have been last Smiths show, but MArr broke his finger or something. By tthe time it was rescheduled I had gone off em, after Strangeways and didn't bother getting a new ticket. Doh! To their last show.....

I did get to see Morrissey in Brighton in 2004, I think it was. Lots of old numbers, which went down really well. Was good. Funny to see the crowd - an odd mix, denim, goths, middle-aged, young, quiffs, greys.

Real Truth Online said...

"I thought you directed your demand for answers at Solomon."

You're either a liar or a moron. I personally say BOTH. I have directed NONE of my comments toward Solomon, because Solomon is YOU. If you bothered READING my posts, you'd see that I only pasted YOUR quotes into my response, so how in the fuck could you think it was directed at someone OTHER than YOU??

"Troofers, and peeps like yourself have a very strange and extreme attitude to others whom hold a different opinion."

Funny you say that, since you haven't refuted me ONCE.

Isn't it also funny that you ramble on and almost word for word REPEAT the same post that I responded to above, and you answer it by saying the SAME thing over and over. Here is my response AGAIN...this time, don't come back and REPEAT the same quote of yours I was RESPONDING to:

[lets see if you can READ this this time]

"You just contradicted yourself in the SAME paragraph. First you claimed that "There is no tolerance whatsoever for any point of view that contradicts their dogma in any way"---THEN you claim that "when their [wrong word: you meant "they're"] not attacking outsiders they go after each other with equal zeal".

HUH????? First you say we don't tolerate ANY point of view that contradicts our dogma in any way, THEN you say we go after our OWN with equal zeal?? Why would we go after our own unless they DID adopt a point of view contrary to our own point of view? You make NO SENSE whatsoever.

The ONLY reason I would go after my own is if they DID contradict my dogma and believe something I did NOT believe. Example: I have blasted Alex Jones on my site NUMEROUS times. You would call Alex Jones MY OWN would you not? Of course you would! In other words, on those occasions that I attacked Jones, I was NOT tolerating his point of view, so I blasted him on my site.

Why would we "go after our own with equal zeal" if we refused to tolerate different points of view??

You claim that truthers/conspiracists are all the SAME and we all believe the same way RIGHT?? So, isn't it true that when I attacked Jones on my site, I was expressing my disdain for his point of view?? Since I was expressing disdain for it, wouldn't that be PROOF that I attack my OWN?"

By the way dipshit, congrats on answering my THIRD question, but you failed to answer the first two:

1. When have YOU attacked YOUR OWN?

2. Name ONE time when you have attacked someone you SUPPORT most of the time?

the_last_name_left said...

My god, you are such a complete moron Larry.

Go fuck yourself.

Real Truth Online said...

"Go fuck yourself."

EXCELLENT refutation!

Gonna ban YOURSELF now? Isn't that the very language you BAN people for??? LOL.

By the way, answer these questions:

1. When have YOU attacked YOUR OWN?

2. Name ONE time when you have attacked someone you SUPPORT most of the time?

When I get ignored THIS time, I will assume that your answers to my questions are the following:

1. NEVER

2. I can't. It's NEVER happened.


Tee hee!!!!

Real Truth Online said...

Your blood is boiling because a "troofer" has kicked your ever-loving lying British asshole yet again, huh??

the_last_name_left said...

Griffin writes:

"On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth"
---------------------------

Maybe you should listen a little more closely, Larry?

That's three claims you make, which Griffin accepts as WRONG.

1) that currency is issued at interest
2) that the FED is not essentially government controlled
3) that there isn't enough money to pay the debt

GRIFFIN CONCURS WITH FLAHERTY and CONCEDES THAT ALL 3 CLAIMS ARE WRONG.

LARRY DOES NOT. Larry believes Griffin "debunked" FLaherty. lol

Flaherty is a PhD economist. Larry is not. Nor is Griffin.

Larry doesn't know anything about what he is speaking about (again). Larry likes to imagine his own ignorance trumps the education and experience of a professional economist and PhD. Typical.

Larry can't even accurately assess the words of those he claims to support. Larry wrongly thinks Griffin supports his own claims re 1,2,3 above. He doesn't.

THAT'S CALLED A FACT, BTW.

Griffin's complaint about the FED is a very simplistic criticism of fractional reserve banking. Anybody doing Banking 101 sees the issue immediately - nobody needs Griffin to point it out, certainly not when it's accompanied by his outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions on "conspiracies" ruling the world....blah blah blah.

What a lot of rot.

But of course, without the wider conspiracy angle, Griffin's 'critique' would simply be the ubiquitous and unsophisticated criticism of fractional reserve banking which can be found most anywhere.

It's a very simple criticism - of the fact banks lend more money than they possess. There is nothing more to it.

BTW - Griffin doesn't dispute a single FACT of Flaherty's. He concedes all the points Flaherty raised and to which he responds.

HEre's another:

Griffin: "If it [the FED] were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found;"
--------------

All these quotes are taken from the same article Larry/RTO reproduces at his website. Yet LArry calls it "Griffin debunking Flaherty" LOL

NOWHERE DOES GRIFFIN REFUTE ANYTHING BY FLAHERTY

NOWHERE.

Here's Griffin again, addressing claims the FED is foreign-owned: "Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise."
-----

That's some debunking isn't it.....saying Flaherty is correct, EVERY TIME. LOL

Real Truth Online said...

"GRIFFIN CONCURS WITH FLAHERTY and CONCEDES THAT ALL 3 CLAIMS ARE WRONG."

WRONG. As I said in my other post: FLAHERTY is the would-be debunker. It is FLAHERTY who is setting out to debunk GRIFFIN. If there is agreement on a certain issue, then it's FLAHERTY who agrees with GRIFFIN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

GRIFFIN is not the would-be debunker----FLAHERTY IS. So if there is ANY agreement.....it's FLAHERTY agreeing with GRIFFIN!! Comprende???

Let me break it down for you since your pea brain can't handle English:

Let's say that I make a specific claim about something.

In YOUR attempt to debunk ME, you actually say something that coincides with what I said. That would be YOU agreeing with ME-----NOT ME agreeing with YOU, since YOU are the one attempting to debunk ME. Get it now? Or do you need flash cards?

"BTW - Griffin doesn't dispute a single FACT of Flaherty's. He concedes all the points Flaherty raised and to which he responds."

You STILL don't get it, do you? FLAHERTY was trying to debunk GRIFFIN'S BOOK. Griffin was not trying to debunk some separate issue of Flaherty's that he made in some speech or book he wrote. FLAHERTY was attempting to debunk Griffin's book-----so you saying "Griffin doesn't dispute a single FACT of Flaherty's. He concedes all the points Flaherty raised..." is misleading and inaccurate.

It was GRIFFIN who wrote his book FIRST, THEN FLAHERTY attempted to debunk it and Griffin is simply responding to Flaherty's attempted debunking.

You make it appear as if FLAHERTY's work came first and Griffin was debunking it. Although it would be correct to say that they agree on certain issues, it's fallacious to say that Griffin IS AGRREING WITH FLAHERTY. It's the other way around.

You posted Griffins words:

"If it [the FED] were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found;"

but you conveniently left out what came next.....

"The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it."

The Fed is an independent agency and makes it own laws, meaning it can make laws to do CRIMINAL activity and make it LEGAL [that is why Griffin said "nothing illegal would be found" because their criminal activity is LEGAL]. That is what Griffin was saying in the above quote.

It's like a Sheriff coming into town in the old west and declaring that murder is legal. Murder is WRONG and IMMORAL, but the Sheriff has made it LEGAL. That's the Fed for you.

Get it now?

Real Truth Online said...

"NOWHERE DOES GRIFFIN REFUTE ANYTHING BY FLAHERTY

NOWHERE."

LIE. I showed you the quotes on the other thread.

the_last_name_left said...

RTO/L: "their criminal activity is LEGAL"

--------------

HAHA.

So........you can't find anything about which Griffin disagrees with Flaherty.....

and yet you claim Griffin "debunked" Flaherty. lol

the_last_name_left said...

ME: "GRIFFIN CONCURS WITH FLAHERTY and CONCEDES THAT ALL 3 CLAIMS ARE WRONG."

L/RTO: WRONG.
------------------------

No it is NOT wrong Larry.

IT IS CORRECT.

Jeez, this is as simple as it gets.

In his supposed rebuttal, Griffin says he agrees with Flaherty about each point of contention.

Griffin is entitled to believe a central bank "steals from the American people".....but when he also agrees with a debunker that each point of his rationale for such a conclusion is flat wrong, well......one has to be a fool to believe his conclusion.

Why does Griffin believe it himself if he disagrees with the foundation of such claims? lol

the_last_name_left said...

Larry earlier said:

L:RTO: "WE [the people] pay the interest to the Fed. The article makes it sound as if since the Fed sends the govt the interest, then they are being really swell guys and paying that interest. Hogwash."
-----------------

Larry posits G Edward Griffin in support.

However, Griffin disagrees with Larry.

Griffin writes: "It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded."
---------------

So there ya go Larry.

You are in disagreement with your own source. lol

Similarly, Larry seems to believe in the Debt-Virus fallacy, which posits that there is never enough money available to pay all the debt.

However, again Griffin disagrees with Larry.....

Griffin: "On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth"
-------------------

So, why are you citing Griffin when he disagrees with your position, Larry?

It's getting confusing Larry - you make claims and then offer evidence from people who say they don't believe the claims.

Do you agree with Flaherty and Griffin that the FED returns interest to the Treasury?

Or not?

Do you agree with Griffin that the debt-virus thesis is fallacious?

Or not?

the_last_name_left said...

Here's another bothersome little detail for you and Porn Raul, Larry:

According to the World Gold Council the U.S. has 8,100 metric tonnes of gold (combined Fed and U.S.) which at $1,200/oz, would be valued at roughly $313 billion. Our money supply (M3) is around $14.7 trillion. How do you back up $14.7 trillion with only $313 billion in gold?
-------------

What a joke.

This points to one of the main reasons gold was abandoned. Ben Franklin also refers to it, when he claims the main cause of the revolution was the British imposition of a requirement to pay taxes in gold, as opposed to the 'worthless' paper money the US had been using successfully until then.

Gold backed currency, effectively gold currency, is hogwash. Gold is just an element like any other.....quarks and leptons. There's no magic.

The selling-point for gold as currency is supposed to be that there's not much of it, so it can't be issued at will.

lol. Like that's a good thing? Hell, why not make Moon rocks into currency, as we only have a very few.....

What a ridiculous idea. The less money the better? Sure.....everyone is always complaining how they have too much money....so let's hugely reduce the availability......

Nuts.

Real Truth Online said...

"So........you can't find anything about which Griffin disagrees with Flaherty....."

I posted the VERBATIM issues on the other thread. YOU IGNORED IT. In fact, you said on THAT VERY THREAD Griffin agreed with EVERYTHING Flaherty said even UNDER my post that showed the diagreements!!

Here they are again, you blind mother fucker:

Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Griffin: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception
------------

Flaherty: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress

Griffin: Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress.
------------
Flaherty: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery.

Griffin: I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that “any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery.” What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it.
--------------

What you fail to comprehend is that since Flaherty is attempting to debunk Griffin and not the other way around, then it's inaccurate to say that Griffin is agreeing with Flaherty......Flaherty is agreeing with Griffin! FLAHERTY is the would-be debunker---NOT Griffin, so Flaherty is agreeing with GRIFFIN.

It was Flaherty who set out to debunk Griffin's book. If Griffin says that Flaherty is correct on Flaherty's would-be criticisms, then it is FLAHERTY who is agreeing with Griffin since FLAHERTY is the one doing the critique of GRIFFIN! You don't see that??

the_last_name_left said...

Bill Still - MoneyMasters - says

"My line is if you jailed every Rothschild and Rockefeller, every Morgan and Schiff in the world, the system would carry on without missing a beat. NOTHING would change.

I regularly bounce those who post Rothschild stuff. Yes, I included it in "The MoneyMasters" but that was before I realized that the mere mention of Rothschild would open the entire project to the charge of anti-semitism. I've learned my lesson."
------------------

He must be sick of all the joooo-haters waving his work around.

the_last_name_left said...

The point is, Larry, you claimed Griffin 'debunked' Flaherty.

Yet when Griffin addressed Flaherty, he admits Flaherty is right, and the claims you make on behalf of Griffin are wrong.

Anyway - let's get back to these questions you keep refusing to answer -

Do you agree with Flaherty and Griffin that the FED returns interest to the Treasury?

Or not?

Do you agree with Griffin that the debt-virus thesis is fallacious?

Or not?

the_last_name_left said...

You can't maintain the 2 positions, Larry.

You can't agree with BOTH MoneyMasters and Griffin on the debt-virus thing.

You can't agree with Griffin but disagree with Flaherty over whether the FED returns its surplus to the Treasury.

Which positions will you abandon?

Real Truth Online said...

"Do you agree with Flaherty and Griffin that the FED returns interest to the Treasury?"

Never said they didn't. In fact, I said they DID pay interest from the start, they just use OUR money to do it!

"The point is, Larry, you claimed Griffin 'debunked' Flaherty."

He did. And the amazing thing is, you have always said that Griffin is a liar and nut, THEN with the same breath you say that Flaherty AGREES with Griffin. That makes Flaherty a liar and nut also? No???

Once AGAIN, you IGNORED Griffin's words DISAGREEING with Flaherty. When, oh when, will you address it?

the_last_name_left said...

Griffin does not disagree with Flaherty on any of the things he raises in his rebuttal.

Except Griffin considers it all "bad" - a conspiracy - and Flaherty doesn't.

Still no answer whether you believe in the debt-virus fallacy.

And now you're claiming you never said the FED doesn't hand over its surplus to the Treasury?

And that you never said the currency is issued at interest?

Here's your Griffin, being exposed as a very poor researcher - nay, fabricator.

here

here

here

here

here

here

the_last_name_left said...

Oh, so you DO agree the FED returns any surplus to the Treasury?

Good.

Your complaint then, is what?

The thing you don't seem to understand is that any interest Americans pay to the FED is RETURNED TO THE STATE TREASURY - THE GOVERNMENT - THE PEOPLES GOVERNMENT.

IF it wasn't, you'd have grounds for complaint. But it is, so you don't. Sheesh.

the_last_name_left said...

Still waiting to hear whether you believe in the debt-virus thing.

BTW - Griffin doesn't.

So, which is it? Yes, or no?

the_last_name_left said...

One thing....Ron Paul wants competing currencies. Is he mental? He wants anyone to be able issue currency at will? He at least wants several types of currency. What a nut? Why would you want that? What sort of a nightmare would it be with several different currencies in circulation? The man is crazy?

From an account of 1811-1816, before the Panic of 1819

"Other corporations and tradesman issued "currency." Even barbers and bartenders competed with the banks in this respect....nearly every citizen regarded it his constitutional right to issue money."

lol - and Ronnie wants to do it again? Woohoo!

On the general conspiracist point that banks and government deliberately cause crashes Rough says:

"Let me get this straight. Banks and governments deliberately cause depressions and panics so that in the end they make more money. This is a curious statement indeed considering that many of the bankruptcies that occurred during the panic were the banks themselves. The complete stupidity of believing that banks conspire to create their own downfall is beyond comprehension. And what of the government profiting from economic disaster? Bray Hammond quotes Representative Alexander C. Hanson of Maryland:

So completely empty was the treasury and destitute of credit that funds could not be obtained to defray the current ordinary expenses of the different Departments....the Department of State was so bare of money as to be unable to pay even its stationary bill.

With this gullibility in mind, is it no wonder then at all that conspiracy theorists are considered the lunatic fringe?"
--------------

Real Truth Online said...

"Except Griffin considers it all "bad" - a conspiracy - and Flaherty doesn't."

OH REALLLLLLLYY???

Flaherty ADMITTED that the secret meeting DID take place! Ive even posted his words before....ON THIS VERY THREAD!!! You fucking DUMBASS TWAT!

Here was the hypothesis:

"Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply."

Here is his response....

WORDS OF FLAHERTY:

"The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jeckyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks."

This was included in the text I posted many many times! Even when I post things over and over-----you STILL don't fucking read them!!

He ADMITTED it was a conspiracy! I just showed you HIS WORDS.

FUCKTARD.

"And now you're claiming you never said the FED doesn't hand over its surplus to the Treasury?

And that you never said the currency is issued at interest?"

I have ALWAYS said the government pays interest on the money they borrow from the Fed----and they dont even NEED the Fed to print money, they could print the money themselves at NO interest. They pay the interest and suck Americans dry of their money to pay for the interest THEY pay to the Fed for the money they borrow from the Fed...THATS FACT.

TURD.

the_last_name_left said...

L/RTO: They pay the interest and suck Americans dry of their money to pay for the interest THEY pay to the Fed for the money they borrow from the Fed...THATS FACT.
------------

THEY? The American Government you mean. Which means YOU - THE PEOPLE.

So, the government "sucks Americans dry" for the "interest THEY pay to the FED"?

And then the FED returns it, to the Treasury. So no loss there then.

DOH! - CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? Anything paid to the FED gets returned to the Treasury - so there's NO 'sucking American dry' - THEY GET THE CASH BACK.

IDIOT.

Real Truth Online said...

"And then the FED returns it, to the Treasury. So no loss there then."

Why collect the interest at ALL then???

Hmmmmm, Einstein????

The Fed charges interest just so they can give it back??? Why doesn't the governmnt just print its own money and abolish the Fed?? Got an answer for that?? Of course not. I'll be IGNORED again.

Real Truth Online said...

LOL!!!! HA HA HA HA!!! Comment moderation!!! I LOVE IT!

The big fucking pussy BABY hates when I destroy him with FACTS, so the little fucking pussy baby has to APPROVE comments now.

You're a fucking pussy ass CRY BABY.

Real Truth Online said...

LOL "spamming". Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Moderation is "required"----yeah, so you can't let FACTS onto the blog!!

Ha ! Im pissing my pants in laughter!

the_last_name_left said...

What interest is paid to the FED Larry?

You tell me?

Real Truth Online said...

Yes, THEY charge interest because THEY print the money! You think they do it for FREE? Comment moderation! I LOVE IT! You are one big PUSSY. You think Im a NUT so you moderate MY comments? Why would you PROTECT me by moderating my "nutty" comments?? Dont you want your 2 readers to see how "nutty" I am? No, you want to PROTECT me.

We all know the REAL reason is because you hate the facts I kick your ASS with.

Real Truth Online said...

"THEY? The American Government you mean. Which means YOU - THE PEOPLE."

It hasnt been "we the people" since 1865. Our country only existed as the founders wanted it for 89 years. 1776--1865

the_last_name_left said...

L/RTO: THEY charge interest because THEY print the money! You think they do it for FREE?
----------

What do you mean?

How do they "charge interest" on money they print? HOW? What do you mean?

the_last_name_left said...

Silence......

the_last_name_left said...

1) Printed money is a small part of the currency.

2) It's actually The Treasury that prints dollars, not the FED.

Conclusion - you have no idea what you are on about.

Real Truth Online said...

"2) It's actually The Treasury that prints dollars, not the FED."

Funny, my currency says FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE---------NOT TREASURY NOTE

even wikipedia says:

"The U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States". Congress has exercised that power by authorizing Federal Reserve Banks to issue Federal Reserve Notes.

Debunked AGAIN!

The Treasury Dept. USED TO issue the money, they dont NOW, asshole. Even wikipedia says this. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

It states:

"Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency, with the words "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on each note. (See generally 31 U.S.C. § 5103.) They have replaced United States Notes, which were once issued by the Treasury Department."

wikipedia also says:

"The authority of the Federal Reserve Banks to issue notes comes from the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Legally, they are liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States government. Although not issued by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Notes carry the (engraved) signature of the Treasurer of the United States and the United States Secretary of the Treasury."

Did you read that???? "Although NOT ISSUED by the Treasury Dept..."........"NOT ISSUED by the Treasury Dept..."

NOT ISSUED

NOT ISSUED

They USED to be issued by the Treasury BEFORE The Fed came along. Now The Fed issues it. You're thinking of the UNITED STATES NOTES, issued from 1862-1971. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES is what we have NOW. DICKBRAIN.

You just may be dumber than a rock....literally!

Debunked AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN.

You are a true blue TURD.

Real Truth Online said...

I KNEW that you would "not approve" my last comment of me showing PROOF The Fed issues currency and not the Treasury dept.

Why would you post facts???

the_last_name_left said...

They are issued by the FED.

But they are printed by the Treasury.

------

Stop stalling to avoid addressing the question -

You said

-----------
"THE FED charge interest because THEY print the money!"
-----------

What do you mean?

I already told you

1) printed money is a fraction of the money in circulation, and
2) The Treasury prints the money - (and the FED issues it.)

So, how does the FED charge interest on money it prints?

the_last_name_left said...

Just so you have the proof:

"The U.S. Mint produces coins and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces currency. Both organizations are bureaus of the U.S. Department of the Treasury."
---------------

http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/coins-currency.aspx

Real Truth Online said...

Ok let me make something clear. The point was NEVER where the actual printing gets done at. Location is irrelevant. It was my mistake to interchange the words "printed" and "issued". What is important is who ORDERS the money printed and who ISSUES it. Location of the printed money is so completely unimportant.

When people like Ron Paul say things like "The Fed just keeps printing money out of thin air", OBVIOUSLY he is not saying the Fed PRINTS it. He is saying they are ORDERING it printed and issuing it, which is all that matters.

Real Truth Online said...

No response. Hmmmmm.

the_last_name_left said...

Who prints the money matters in so far as you said 'the FED charges interest, because they print the money'

They don't print the money, so presumably they can't charge interest on printing it.

What about on the issuance?

Well, 95% of the cash issued is to replace worn-out existing cash in circulation, so there's only a very small net increase in the amount of physical cash - which is normal - as there's only a need for so much currency and coins at any one time.

Perhaps what is meant is that the FED receives interest on govt-issued T-bills which it holds, as any T-bill holder is entitled to.

[The FED buys from markets when it wishes to add liquidity/cash to the system, sells when it wishes to withdraw it]

However, worth noting that if the FED didn't get the interest someone else would be due it - someone who wouldn't be returning it to the Treasury at y/e.
----------------

Interesting to note the actual state of affairs, whereby the FED has returned greatly increased amounts to the Treasury these last years:

Compare 2008:

"The Federal Reserve Board on Friday announced preliminary results that indicate the Reserve Banks recorded payments and provisions for the transfer of approximately $34.9 billion of their estimated 2008 net income of $38.8 billion to the U.S. Treasury, which is comparable to the 2007 results."

with 2010:

"The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced preliminary unaudited results indicating that the Reserve Banks provided for payments of approximately $78.4 billion of their estimated 2010 net income of $80.9 billion to the U.S. Treasury."
--------

So, in fact the amount returned to the Treasury has doubled in 2 years....because the FED has bought up securities in the market (to add liquidity).

That money would be going to private sector, not the Treasury, if the FED hadn't bought them. [most of the FED's income comes from such securities according to the FED]

Of a Federal Budget totalling $3.5Tn, the Treasury's $80Bn income from FED amounts to 2% or so? Not bad? Better than it costing 2%, surely? Either way, it clearly isn't critical to US budget, or its debt.

So it's difficult to understand what the complaint about "paying interest to the FED" is about. What was RP on about in his interview with CNN which I linked to? He's playing on peoples' fears, and anti-FED sentiment?

"Who are they? Why should we pay them!!??" he says. Thing is, they're not "being paid" all that money - it comes right back to the Treasury.

the_last_name_left said...

Moreover, if conditions improve, and the FED starts selling its securities (to remove liquidity, to combat inflation, a credit boom etc) then FED income will again rise....as the proceeds from sales increase (which will mean a fall in interest received too - the Gov. will be paying the private sector holders of the Tbills etc rather than the FED).

Plus, there is a possibility that if conditions improve, and the assets bought by the FED as part of the rescue packages can be sold, that too will return funds, thereby reducing the overall cost of the bailout - which was prompted by CRISIS, let's not forget. If the crisis hadn't been addressed, the costs would have been systemic bank failures and a possible economy-wide failure. If companies can't bank, con't get credit, can't get cash, or overdrafts, then there's a huge problem. That's what was being faced....and the bailout prevented it. At a huge cost (on the books) - true. But what about the costs of not doing it? A systemic bank failure with international repercussions likely would have been a catastrophe - for jobs, incomes, the economy.

However much one might dislike the
system, a system-wide bank failure would have been a disaster. People arguing the banks should have been allowed to collapse need make clear what would have happened otherwise - a disaster for jobs and incomes - and a threat to the world economy. Huge dislocation.....and for what? Just so their ideological commitment to free-markets could find expression?

Anyway, if you still think the FED "charges interest on the currency" or whatever, I have no idea what you mean. I don't think it means anything - it's a fear that's been stoked, and exploited for political/ideological reasons imo.

And whilst the bailouts have been costly (what huge crisis isn't?) it has prevented a banking collapse, and thereby avoided an economy-wide collapse which would result from failure of entire banking sector.

I think those that argue the collapse should have been allowed to occur are crazy - and are advising a despicable will to not intervene in the face of certain disaster. And all for ideological reasons! They're crazy.

Real Truth Online said...

"And whilst the bailouts have been costly (what huge crisis isn't?) it has prevented a banking collapse, and thereby avoided an economy-wide collapse which would result from failure of entire banking sector."

So, only the BANKS get bailed out huh? WHY NOT small businesses...little mom and pop stores if they collapse? Are you telling me the ones who CREATED the economic collapse [the banks] are the very ones who get bailed out of financial collapse?

You're fucking nuts!

"I think those that argue the collapse should have been allowed to occur are crazy"

So why are small business collapses ALLOWED to occur? Who bails out small businesses? NO ONE, that's who---and they did NOTHING to stoke the financial meltdown. The banks CREATE the fucking mess, and they get bailed out of it-----PLUS their CEO's get multi-million dollar bonuses!!!

And you support that??? And you call ME nuts???

the_last_name_left said...

Well, it's better than no bail-out at all - it's far better than allowing almost guaranteed disaster.

Yes, it seems incredibly unjust - yes, a hideous and surely unnecessary expense etc.

But crises are never cheap or pleasant, right?

It's a bit crazy to suggest it was done 'on purpose'. Banks destroying their own business is daft.

It presupposes that everything would be alright if someone/some people hadn't' purposefully made a mess. I think that's naive, and groping for self-comfort.

And let's not forget that most people weren't complaining when their house-price was doubling, right?

And back then it was "Let's abolish regulation!"

And a more equitable society was derided as 'communism'.

Let's not forget, either, that the American working class have been the best-off in the world for generations. Hardship hasn't just been invented, and certainly not in America.
----

I don't have to think the bail-out is "a good thing" to support it.....certainly not against the alternative of doing nothing instead.

Nor does it mean I must have totally supported the system it bailed out.

I'm a socialist - so why would I be supporting all that?

However, I certainly support it (liberalism) over hare-brained schemers......including RonPaul.

I'd prefer a much more Keynesian approach - get people to work - share out work - shift income from the top towards the bottom - increase demand. Ultimately I'd like a much more socialist organisation - international, co-operative, egalitarian, just, democratic.

On the other hand, this "let it all collapse" thing is ridiculous imo - especially as there's really nothing to replace it. I know socialism isn't ready to step into such a vacuum - certainly not with mass support at least. Who is ready? The Nazis? RonPaul and his ragtag of weirdo friends? No thanks! And as if there is support for it?

The 'rebuild out of destruction' thing is dumb - it's evil.

Real Truth Online said...

Question:

What do you think the founding fathers would say about bailing out banks?

HINT: They already DID cover that issue, I just want to see if your answer and their answer MATCH.

Real Truth Online said...

I figured you'd ignore my last post and NOT post it. Still can't handle FACTS huh?? That PROVES the REAL reason for the comment moderation......afraid of FACTS.

Blissentia said...

With respect to reliable sources supporting these arguments, see: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/02/amazing-1934-quote-on-rothschilds.html

Blissentia said...

Also: http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2008/06/compound-interest-paradox-revisited_14.html

Blissentia said...

some of these argumentsnow admitted as legitimate: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity - previously, in "Elements of Banking" (Longmans, Green, And Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York and Bombay, 1902), Macleod noted (p. 155) "When it is said that a great London Joint Stock Bank has perhaps ₤25,000,000 of deposits, it is almost universally believed that it has 25 millions of actual money to "lend out" as it is called. ... it is a complete and entire delusion. These ... "deposits" are not deposits in cash at all: they are nothing but an enormous superstructure of credit.": http://books.google.com/books?id=PPwpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Elements+of+banking+macleod&hl=en&sa=X&ei=huguUeOGIuGBiwL21IHgAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=it%20is%20almost%20universally%20believed%20that%20it%20has%2025%20millions%20of&f=false

Blissentia said...

One guy made these arguments in a film, he got heavily attacked, so he created a source guide with independently verifiable primary sources arguing in favor of many of the claims in pt. III: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf

Blissentia said...

Of great importance is the Congressional Study "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence": http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754067562052;view=1up;seq=3 - for information on the near exclusiveness that New York financial interests have in representation in positions of influence, and the Corporate interlocks with reserve banks, see pp. III-V, 62, and 120.

Page 120 of that document states, "In summary, the Federal Reserve directors are apparently representatives of a small elite group which dominates the economic life of this nation."

According to John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/appellee, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.": http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/680/1239/200393/

It is inaccurate to state that the Fed rebates all interest earnings. It keeps a portion for itself. As noted in their 1/9/2009 Press release:
“The Federal Reserve Board on Friday announced preliminary results that indicate the Reserve Banks recorded payments and provisions for the transfer of approximately $34.9 billion of their estimated 2008 net income of $38.8 billion to the U.S. Treasury [...] The Federal Reserve Banks’ income is derived primarily from interest earned on U.S. government and Federal agency securities that the Banks have acquired through open market operations...”: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20090109a.htm

And those who focus on rebates miss the point that all the money is based on the debt incurred from the money creating process, the banks are not even bound by the limits with which credit can be issued which are set by their holdings, since the banks can, in practice, get as much cash as they require from the State or central bank by means of a simple operation called "open market operations" - the purchasing by banks, with money created by them out of nothing, of Government, securities, which form the basis of money that is extended via the fractional reserve process. It doesn't matter how much debt the Fed itself holds in the long run. The Fed is an ENGINE for debt-money creation.

Blissentia said...

The Federal reserve bank of New York sets interest rates and directs open market operations. As far as membership is concerned, "The FOMC is composed of the seven members of the Board of Governors and five Reserve Bank presidents. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York serves on a continuous basis; the presidents of the other Reserve Banks serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. Rotation is such that each year one member is elected to the Committee by the boards of directors of Reserve Banks in each of the following groups: (1) Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; (2) Cleveland and Chicago; (3) Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and (4) Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco.", the Federal Reserve's Website also notes, with regards to the practices of the Federal Open Market Committee that "the Committee must reach a consensus regarding the appropriate course for policy, which is incorporated in a directive to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the Bank that executes transactions for the System Open Market Account.": http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri2.htm

The Federal Open Market Committee has never been audited, according to 31 USCA §714: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714

The FOMC works with banks called “primary dealers” that are, at present, international (http://newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html). This arrangement has been referred to as a "cartel" in Forbes in the September 30, 1991 editorial "Discard the cartel.": http://business.highbeam.com/392705/article-1G1-11260444/discard-cartel

The autocratic power of this private cartel was noted in a 1994 New York Times article that quoted Alan Blinder, Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from June 1994 to January 1996, who stated: "When we take actions, they are not reversible by any other body of government...": http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/26/business/tough-decision-time-for-federal-reserve-new-vice-chairman-stirs-board-s-pot.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Blissentia said...

The Federal reserve bank of New York sets interest rates and directs open market operations. As far as membership is concerned, "The FOMC is composed of the seven members of the Board of Governors and five Reserve Bank presidents. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York serves on a continuous basis; the presidents of the other Reserve Banks serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. Rotation is such that each year one member is elected to the Committee by the boards of directors of Reserve Banks in each of the following groups: (1) Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; (2) Cleveland and Chicago; (3) Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and (4) Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco.", the Federal Reserve's Website also notes, with regards to the practices of the Federal Open Market Committee that "the Committee must reach a consensus regarding the appropriate course for policy, which is incorporated in a directive to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the Bank that executes transactions for the System Open Market Account.": http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri2.htm

The Federal Open Market Committee has never been audited, according to 31 USCA §714: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714

The FOMC works with banks called “primary dealers” that are, at present, international (http://newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html). This arrangement has been referred to as a "cartel" in Forbes in the September 30, 1991 editorial "Discard the cartel.": http://business.highbeam.com/392705/article-1G1-11260444/discard-cartel

The autocratic power of this private cartel was noted in a 1994 New York Times article that quoted Alan Blinder, Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from June 1994 to January 1996, who stated: "When we take actions, they are not reversible by any other body of government...": http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/26/business/tough-decision-time-for-federal-reserve-new-vice-chairman-stirs-board-s-pot.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Blissentia said...

From the interrogation of Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles in the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 2233: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/historicaldocs/678/download/68568/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf
p. 31:
"Mr. PATMAN. NOW, in order to get our definitions straight a little further, our economy is based upon debt; our bank system and our money are based on debt; that is right, is it not? Mr. ECCLES. Money is created by bank credit.Mr. PATMAN. Yes. Mr. ECCLES. That is right. And the bank reserves are created by the central bank. Mr. PATMAN. With some exceptions, if all the people were to paytheir debts to the banks and the United States Government should pay its debts, there would not be any money to do business with,would there, except just a little, like Civil War money, and coins, and things like that, probably about four or five billion dollars; is that not right? Mr. ECCLES. That is right. That is what happened after 1929. With debt contraction- we have never had a period of prosperity when there has not been an expansion of debt on balance, by either the Government or by the private individuals or corporations, or by both. Whenever debt has contracted on balance, you have had a depression. From 1929 to 1933 I think there was a total debt contraction, as I recall, of something like $30,000,000,000. This was bank debt and also private debt. Mr. PATMAN. Well, is the reason not obvious, that since our money is based upon debt, and our bank system also, and money is created through the bank system by debt, that we can only be prosperous if we go into debt, and if we pay our debts, why, we are in a depression; is that not right? Mr. ECCLES. YOU have got to distinguish between bank debt and debt outside of the bank. The expansion of debt to the banks creates deposits and deposits, of course, are always available to be withdrawn as currency. In other words, the growth of debts to banks, whether in the form of public debt, such as the ownership of Government bonds, municipal debt, or private debt, creates deposits. That is where the great growth of bank deposits has come from, largely through the growth of debt, and largely Government debt. And that, of course, is responsible for our very large, what we term, money supply."

And given that money is created via loans, but since loans have interest rates attached to them, there is always more money owed than is in circulation. Hence all real wealth inevitably gravitates to the financiers making use of this “technique”, and this occurs in any country with the modern central banking system. A primer on money / Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d session. p. 75 states: "The practical effect of requiring all purchases to be made through the open market is to take money from the taxpayer and give it to these dealers. It forces the Government to pay a toll for borrowing money.": http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b654324;view=1up;seq=87

Blissentia said...

Michel Chossudovsky, author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the World Bank: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/290697/World-Bank, noted regarding bailouts, "A handful of financial institutions have enriched themselves as a result of institutional speculation on a large scale, as well as manipulation of the market. And secondly what they have done is that they have then gone to their governments and said, “Well, we are now in a very difficult situation and you need to lend us…you need to give us money so that we can retain the stability of the financial system.”
And who actually lends the money, or brokers the public debt? The same financial institutions that are the recipients of the bailout. And so what you have is a circular process. It’s a diabolical process. You’re lending money…no, you’re not lending money, you’re handing money to the large financial instutions, and then this is leading up to mounting public debt in the trillions. And then you say to the financial institutions “We need to establish a new set of treasury bills and government bonds, etc.” which of course are sold to the public, but they are always brokered through the financial institutions which establish their viability and so on and so forth. And the financial institutions will probably buy part of this public debt so that in effect what the government is doing is financing its own indebtedness through the bailouts. It hands money to the banks, but to hand money to the banks, it becomes indebted to those same financial institutions, and then it says “We now have to emit large amounts of public debt. Please can you help us?” And then the banks will say: “Well, your books are not quite in order.” And then the government will say: “Obviously they’re not in order because we’ve just handed you 1.4 trillion dollars of bailout money and we’re now in a very difficult situation. So we need to borrow money from the people who are in fact the recipients of the bailout.”
So this is really what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with a circular process" - The Banker Bailouts - Michel Chossudovsky on Economics 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx76RmNpAVM

Blissentia said...

Relating to the mention of interlocks above, the following study, "Interlocking Directorates Among Major U.S. Corporations", shows how far this interlock goes when you pool in all the major corporations in the U.S.: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077914680;q1=Interlocking%20Directorates%20among%20the%20Major%20U.S.%20Corporations;seq=3;view=1up
On p. 279 of this document, we find that "From the study, the staff has concluded that American business is highly concentrated across industry lines—perhaps more concentrated today than it was in 1913 when Louis Brandeis wrote of the "endless chain," and in 1955 when C. Wright Mills spoke of the "power elite."

p. 280 summarized various interlocks including the extreme interlock among the largest corporations and the largest financial institutions, and on pp. 280-281, we find that "These facts raise fundamental issues. Such interlocking directorates among the Nation's very largest corporations may provide mechanisms for stabilizing prices, controlling supply and restraining competition. They can have a profound effect on business attempts to influence Government policies. They can impact on corporate decisions as to the type and quality of products and services to be marketed in the United States and overseas. They can influence company policies with respect to employee rights, compensation and job conditions. They can bear on corporate policies with respect to environmental and social issues and possibly, control the shape and direction of the Nation's economy."