Monday, March 28, 2011

In Order to Disprove Glenn Beck and G. Edward Griffin About the Fed, Dave Neiwert Lies with Half-Truths and Angers Some Leftists

Even some liberals who frequent Crooks and Liars disagree with Neiwert and say G. Edward Griffin is right about the Federal Reserve. Neiwert cites Edward Flaherty as a Griffin "debunker", yet his analysis is filled with half-truths and lumps all Fed conspiracists together

by Larry Simons
March 28, 2011

Glenn Beck devoted his entire program Friday night to discussing the Federal Reserve and had G. Edward Griffin [author of The Creature from Jekyll Island] on as a guest. For quite some time, liberal blogger Dave Neiwert [of Crooks and Liars] has been on a crusade against Beck, and rightly so 90% of the time. Every once in a while Beck is accurate in what he says, but even the "broken clock is right twice a day" analogy doesn’t sit well with Neiwert when it comes to Beck.

In an attempt to debunk the often nutty Beck, Neiwert resorts to 15 seconds of "research" in his latest article titled, "As predicted, Beck goes full-bore Bircher with hour-long promotion of Griffin's anti-Fed conspiracy tome", by copying and pasting portions of analysis from economist Edward Flaherty, who resorts to half-truths when attempting to debunk Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island, a book that exposes the criminal Federal Reserve system.

Immediately hilarious was Neiwert’s title, in which he uses the words "As predicted", claiming that Beck’s having G. Edward Griffin on his show to discuss the "conspiracy" of the Federal Reserve was a "prediction" even after admitting that Beck said this:

"You, by the way, have to watch this show on Friday -- because there is some truth to that. The unbelievable history of the Fed. The, uh -- what is it, the uh, 'Monster,' is that what it was called? The Monster? The Creature of Jekyll Island. We will give you the truth and none of the crazy conspiracy theories on the Fed on Friday."

Wow. An amazing accomplishment for Neiwert: "Predicting" that Beck will talk about the Fed and G. Edward Griffin’s book when Beck himself said he would. Simply amazing.

Then, Neiwert, as he consistently does, pejoratively refers to the John Birch Society as if just the mention of it alone induces images of craziness and paranoia. Neiwert writes:

"Beck, as we all know, has previously demonstrated a fondness for the Birch Society, and this is consistent with that: Griffin, after all, was a close personal friend and longtime associate of Birch Society founder Robert Welch, and wrote a popular Birch book published in 1964, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations."

And?

Here are the core principles of the John Birch Society. Let us behold their pure evil, shall we?

John Birch Society core principles:

  • Anti-totalitarian [my god, noooooo!]
  • Anti-socialist [noooooo, not that!]
  • Anti-communist [those evil bastards!]
  • For limited government [this would make the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, a nutjob according to Neiwert]
  • Defenders of the original intention of the Constitution [we can’t have this, now can we?]
  • Opposed to wealth distribution, economic interventionism and fascism.
  • Opposed to a one world government
  • Supports immigration reduction
  • Opposes the United Nations
  • Opposes NAFTA
  • Opposes CAFTA
  • Opposes the North American Union [cites the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of NAU]
  • Supports ending the Federal Reserve

    In other words, our founding fathers would virtually be in complete harmony with the core beliefs of the JBS. Anyone who would disagree with this would most likely hold a distorted and alternative interpretation of the Constitution [probably in the same manner Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln did…both of which wanted government centralized and longed for America to be an empire with virtually no states rights].

    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?

    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.

    Below are Flaherty’s stances on the Fed and Griffin’s responses.

    Flaherty:

    Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board.

    Griffin:

    Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control.

    One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false.

    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. 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. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book.

    Technically, there is no "profit" on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans.

    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. 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.

    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. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly "break the grip of the money trust," the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected.

    What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for "big-business Republicans" and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, "defenders of the working man." It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that "the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks" cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

    [Let me add that Flaherty, while admitting the meeting took place in secret, claims it was because "the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories." But, naturally, Flaherty completely omits the fact that each of the men went under aliases so that the meeting could be shrouded in complete secrecy. What would Flaherty argue the reason for going under aliases were? Neiwert, not concerned with facts, also omits this]

    Flaherty:

    The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank’s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

    Griffin:

    Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank’s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let’s say 6.5% interest. That’s a spread of 5%. Although that’s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn’t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don’t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well.

    Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous "competitive" amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that "This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money," one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States.

    Flaherty:

    The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery. Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

    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.

    Flaherty:

    No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

    Griffin:

    Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished.

    Perhaps, the most damning aspect of Neiwerts efforts to ridicule Beck and debunk Griffin is from most of the people who left comments under his story at C & L. Some people actually claim to be "leftists", liberal and haters of Glenn Beck, yet still condemn Neiwert for his insane article. Here are just a handful of the many negative comments directed at Neiwert [which shockingly have not been deleted…I captured the screen shots just incase they are soon]:

    Event horizon

    "If a truthful statement is made is doesn't matter if it's Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Griffin. The FED and Wall St are one and the same and are killing the bottom 95% of this country. This clown is either not paying attention or in Wall St.s pocket. Do I have to abandon C & L too?"

    Geronimo

    "Ask Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler what he thinks about Conspiracy Theories. He wrote a book titled "War is a Racket" He was the most decorated marine at his time. He also helped stop the Business Plot of 1933 which was a corporate plot to overthrow FDR.

    Google that shit. I trust Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler a lot more than I trust David Niewert. That's just the way it is. The truth trumps propaganda. Business Plot of 1933. Gen. Smedley Butler War is a Racket. Bottom line."

    damon466

    "As some others on here have stated I do believe the Fed is indeed a very bad thing for this country. In order to get the Fed the way we have it now, laws were passed at the midnight hour much like in Wisconsin !!! Just because an Idiot like Beck finally is Semi-right about something doesn't mean the Subject matter he is discussing is wrong. just means he is like a blind Squirrel and has finally found a nut !!! I mean come on, are you telling me you have such a hard time believing that a bunch of Banksters could get together and conspire to do something bad??? lol Liberals who blindly attack the right just like the right-wing nut jobs attack the left are no better in my eye.. in fact it makes us legit Progressives look bad. You give us a bad name. 1st off, the Fed needs to go period..!! it has managed to enslave the poor and middle class in almost a century. 2nd, 9-11 did indeed not go down the way the official record states it did.. What are all the blind Liberals so afraid to look at about 9-11? Why can't we find out the truth about what really happened on that day?? Is that so bad to ask?? Does that make me a Whacko 9-11 truther because i simply don't believe the lies our government (or moreso the lies the Powerful people and government at the time were and still are telling) is feeding us?? I mean, people in our Government have never lied to us now have they??"

    David762

    "The single most powerful entity in the USA is the Federal Reserve itself -- would They actually permit such a thorough and public audit? Could they even be forced to submit to an audit? I don't know. The Fed basically hold the economic viability and future of this country hostage to their machinations.

    But assuming both the best and the worst -- that we populists do get our audit of the Fed, AND that our worst fears about Their self-serving corruption are proven true, something would be needed to replace that private for-profit institution when it is dismantled and it's leadership are thrown into prison. From that premise, it would be easy to make the leap to the conclusion that "our" TBTFTBTJ Banksters and Wall Street Mobsters have conspired and colluded with the Federal Reserve for their personal financial benefit.

    One way to "pull the vampire fangs" of our corrupt banking and investment industries would be to implement the formation of publicly owned non-profit State Banks, like that of North Dakota's existing State Bank, under the auspices of the USA Treasury. "Our" TBTFTBTJ Banksters have been both publicly funded (taxpayer bailouts) and privately funded (secret Fed loans), none of which has "trickled down" to Main Street USA. The creation of these State Banks would ameliorate these dire economic conditions -- State funds would stay mostly in-state, rather than chasing the highest ROI with the lowest tax burden (usually zero) in the international economic arena. The credit crisis in the States and on Main Street USA would melt away, with an improving job and economic outlook -- something we are not seeing now with the Banksters."

    "I would be among the first to castigate Glenn Beck as a "wily as a fox" Reich-wing nutcase. I once saw a clip of Glenn Beck admitting that between his former (?) illicit drug use and alcoholism "He only had 2 brain cells to rub together, and one of them kept telling his body to breathe, breathe, breathe". Which explains a lot about Glenn Beck, imvho.

    But even a stopped clock displays the correct time twice a day, and in this particular case of the collusion, corruption, misogyny, and perfidy of the Federal Reserve Bank, he is mostly accurate. The Federal Reserve Bank was created as a private for-profit Central Bank, which it remains to this day. President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the enabling legislation for the Federal Reserve Bank, remarked as he left office that he regretted placing a viper in the bosom of liberty. The Federal Reserve has, and exercises, the power of expanding and contracting this country's money supply, creating repeated booms and busts which they profit from. The biggest, most powerful insider traders on Wall Street is the Federal Reserve itself, with the collusion of the TBTFTBTJ Banksters and Wall Street Mobsters.

    You ask for proof? The Federal Reserve Bank would need to be thoroughly and publicly audited in order to get that proof, and that is the one thing that they (the Federal Reserve) will not permit. I and many many others want the Federal Reserve audited, including both an arch-conservative Representative Ron Paul AND uber-liberal Representative Dennis Kucinich. Sometimes conspiracy facts are denigrated as conspiracy theories.

    David Neiwert's attack on those that would question the motives of those that want "our" Central Bank audited places him squarely in association with the shills and camp-followers of the crony corporatists that actually run this country -- that have economically run this country into the ground. I'm reasonably certain that that was not David's intent, but that is the result."

    bys1955

    "Seems like once you label something anti-semitic, you can cease being analytical. Your analysis really doesn't do much to point out any flaws in Griffin's treatise. Beck is popular because he does entwine some of the data into a narrative that makes a bit of sense at times. The problem with Beck is that he is a propagandist and actually proposes nothing useful, but that's why they hired him....hey kind of like Obama,--we believed his analysis and look we're in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and have corporations like GE paying zero taxes, radiated with broken monitors, etc.

    Haven't you guys at Crooks and liars looked at enough crooks and liars to realize there is a conspiracy going on ---this isn't happening by accident!"

    stormcrow60

    "Look, I hate Glenn Beck. I don't watch his television program nor do I listen to his radio show. I am a dyed in the wool Progressive... and I always have been since around age 17 when I left my conservative and fundamentalist upbringing behind. But I am a 911 Truther. I also believe the Federal Reserve is destroying America. I don't learn these things from Glenn Beck. Hell... I would not even know Beck is talking about this stuff if I did not read it here at C&L. But there is overwhelming evidence, both physical and circumstantial that points to the official accounting of 911 to be wrong. As time goes by, more and more people are coming to grips with this. Those who refuse to question the legitimacy of the official accounting of 911... and I'm not just speaking of folks on the street, but I'm also speaking of established experts ie, engineers, scientists, investigators, who cling to the permise that 911 was not an inside job... I believe these folks and these "experts" simply can not come to accept the reality that their goverrnment would attack it's own citizens. Or, should I say in the more recent common vernacular... consumers.

    Nobody can ever convince me that a jet airliner hit the Pentagon. The evidence points to some type of military missile. Nobody can ever convince me the Twin Towers could have been felled by the fires produced by the impacts of the jet air liners. The fires simply were not hot enough to cause the buildings to pancake and freefall as they did. And this unbelievable phenomenon happened not only once... but twice! Then, there is the inexplicable destruction of Building 7. Building 7 was not even brought up or discussed in the final report in the 911 Commission. Why not?

    As far as the Federal Resevre goes, it is simple fact that the Federal Reserve is run by a cabal of banking interests.

    And even though the Federal Reserve Act was created to offset banking interests in America... in fact... those appointed to sit on the Federal Reserve Board by Obama, and Bush43, and Clinton and Bush41 and Reagan are the same folks who oversaw the destruction of our economy. Why they are not all in prison and the keys thrown away is beyond me. But these same folks that sit on the Federal Reserve Board are bought and paid for by the monied interests. Thus, the bankers interests, whom the Federal Reserve Act was supposed to temper, still have control of America's money supply.

    The fact that these bankers lend us our own money at interest is enough right there to disband the Federal Reserve, or at least completely revamp it. Whether they are of Jewish descent or come from another planet, it makes no difference to me. But, it all starts with removing "corporate citizenship" and repealing the Citizens United decision. As long as corporations are legally seen as having the same inalienable rights as every individual American citizen... and as long as corporations can donate unlimmited and anonymous sums of money to our political election campaigns, we are simply doomed. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying:

    "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."

    This quote purveys the circumstances we live in today. I take it as an affront that those of us who are not drinking the koolaid and have the audacity... the audacity mind you... to question the powers at be are lumped in with those such as Glenn Beck and the Birchers. Questioning our government and demanding turthful answers is our American right, and yet we are castigated for doing so. I am a Progressive that believes in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every American that truly believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, needs to move toward one overwhelming coalition.

    Whether we are Progressives, Tea Partiers, Independents, union members, police, firefighters, school teachers, state and federal government workers, garbage collectors, small business owners, food service employees, health care workers, construction workers and everyone in between... we need to gather together in force and march on Washington. Imagine 10-15 million (or more) American citizens surrounding the White House and the Capital. Like Wisconsin, we would disrupt the governance of our nation by the monied interests and their Congressional lackeys and bring about real change. The military would be helpless... in fact, I wager they would join us. It is the only way to take back our nation. If not... we are dividing ourselves... even though in reality, we all have the same goals and pretty much seek the same sense of well being in our lives. If we do not come together to unseat the monied interests in America... and the world, we will all be enslaved. Take that in your craw and smoke it David Neiwert!"

    travis504

    "Suddenly the truth is anti-Semitic? Who founded the Federal Reserve, the Cherokee Indians?? No, it was Jewish banking families. Who has ALWAYS sat as the chairman of the Fed? The Chinese?? Look up THAT interesting bit of history.

    For C&L to run this type of story is bordering on lunacy. SImply tell the truth, no matter how much it hurts. C&L, you are about to lose a reader if you keep up this nonsense type of ignorant writing."

    Neiwert has this to say about the legitimacy of The Fed:

    "The Creature from Jekyll Island is in many ways a compendium of previous works claiming that the Federal Reserve is a fundamentally illegitimate -- and therefore deeply nefarious -- organization. Most of these theories were deeply anti-Semitic in nature, since they depicted the Fed's bankers as part of a Jewish cabal intent on destroying white American society. What sets Griffin's work apart is that -- like most Birch texts, which assiduously avoided anti-Semitism -- he manages to scrub out the anti-Semitic elements while keeping the paranoid conspiracist elements intact."

    Here is former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan admitting to Jim Lehrer that the Fed is an independent agency and no other agency of government can overrule actions taken by The Fed.

    It is said at the 7:50 mark


    Neiwert is debunked by Greenspan himself on the legitimacy of The Fed. Neiwert's usage of the word "nefarious" [meaning: evil] is meant to be a distraction from what those against The Fed are actually saying their real issue with The Fed is...that is, dangerous and a threat to liberty.

    Thomas Jefferson said, "A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

    To be an advocate of a central bank, let alone the central bank [The Fed], is at it's very core, un-American and makes one an enemy of liberty. Dave Neiwert easily falls under this category.

  • No comments: