Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

President Kennedy Told The Fed It Had To Stop Lending Money To Govt At Interest?

Recommended Posts

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=931

The majority of the World population recognizes the above One dollar bill as the U.S. Dollar. The fact is, it isn’t a U.S. dollar. It is a Federal Reserve Note masquerading, illegally, as a U.S. Dollar. What does it say at the top of the paper? It doesn’t say United States Note, it says Federal Reserve Note.

Prominent Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson have argued and fought against the central banking polices used throughout Europe.

A note issued by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve Note, is bank currency. These notes are given to the government in exchange for an interest-bearing government bond. The primary means to pay for the interest on these bonds is to borrow more bank notes, thus beginning a vicious cycle that ultimately ends with the complete destruction of the currency and bankruptcy of the nation.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. This Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency – money – without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 gave back to the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. The $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Interesting, I bet this went down like a lead balloon with the bankers. Anyone know when or if this got reversed.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1039

Ever wonder how the privately owned Federal Reserve produces money. Here’s how it’s done.

1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee. The Federal Open Market Committee is a component of the Federal Reserve Banks.

2. The Fed buys the bonds (bonds they issued) which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing. Fraudulent electronic entries on a computer. It is the same as you or I going to a car dealership to buy a brand new car and instead of paying for it with cash or gold we simple type a dollar figure on the dealership’s computer and drive away. We (the buyer) haven’t bought the vehicle as we haven’t given the dealership (seller) anything of value in exchange for the new car. We stole the vehicle – which is exactly what the Federal Reserve does.

3. The receiving banks then launder (I would have said money launder but there is no real value money involved) these worthless credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount in new worthless credits.

One from Injin here.

From a site what might be more "conspiracy" based than factual but a couple of interesting or garbage pieces depending on your views.

Seems like Kennedy wanted to do what Ron Paul only dreams about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=931

Interesting, I bet this went down like a lead balloon with the bankers. Anyone know when or if this got reversed.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1039

One from Injin here.

From a site what might be more "conspiracy" based than factual but a couple of interesting or garbage pieces depending on your views.

Seems like Kennedy wanted to do what Ron Paul only dreams about.

It's a true story

In fact, the US Treasury did issued some silver backed dollar bills in 1963 under the Executive order mentioned above. They were withdrawn from circulation by Lyndon Johnson after JFK had been assassinated.

They've been trying to deflect attention away from this intriguing bit of American history ever since, even employing the services of Hollywood "gatekeepers" like Oliver Stone to deflect the true story of JFK's assassination onto the mafia and others.

It was the banksters wot done it!

JFK waged war against biggest and most powerful crime syndicate of all, the moneychangers..........and lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidential Executive Order 11,110 is quite infamous among conspiracy buffs. Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, writes that the order instructs the Treasury secretary to issue about $4.2 billion in silver certificates as a form of currency in place of Federal Reserve Notes.1 Written by John F. Kennedy, Marrs also speculates this order was part of a larger plan by Kennedy to reduce the influence of the Federal Reserve by giving the Treasury more power to issue currency. The order wassigned June 4, 1963. A few months later, of course, Kennedy was killed, and conspiracy theorists hypothesize a link between the murder and E.O. 11,110. They argue that the Federal Reserve was somehow involved in the assassination to protect its power over monetary policy.

The executive order modifies a pre-existing order issued by Harry Truman in 1951. E.O. 10,289 states "The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President..." The order then lists tasks (a) through (h) which the Treasurer can now do without bothering the President. None of the powers assigned to the Treasury in E.O. 10,289 relate to money or to monetary policy. Kennedy's E.O. 11,110 then instructs that

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 9, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

'(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph ( of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 82), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and ( By revoking subparagraphs ( and © of paragraph 2 thereof.

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

John F. Kennedy, THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963.

To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2

As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2

To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury Secretary.2

E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

Marrs also makes some other factual errors in his conspiracy tale that suggest he is not very familiar with the Federal Reserve or the financial system. He writes that a source of tension between the Federal Reserve and the Kennedy Administration was the Treasury's desire to allow banks to underwrite state and local government bonds, thereby weakening the "dominant" Federal Reserve banks. However, such a move, which was later permitted by Congress, would not have affected the Federal Reserve system because it had never been involved in underwriting bond issues. Marrs also claims that Kennedy signed a bill that changed the backing of small denomination currency from silver to gold to "add strength to the weakened U.S. currency." This is completely false. U.S. currency has not been on the gold standard since 1934, and silver certificates, as their name suggests, had never been redeemable in anything but silver. In addition, U.S. currency was not "weak" during Kennedy's time: There had not been any significant inflation since the late forties, and the exchange rate value of the dollar was fixed according to the Bretton Woods agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, this is true and it's these same people that had him assainated!

I think lincon or Mcinley also tried mass banking reform and also got assainated for there efforts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, this is true and it's these same people that had him assainated!

I think lincon or Mcinley also tried mass banking reform and also got assainated for there efforts!

Watch it, there's probably someone at CIA HQ Langley reading this and has placed HPC on terror watch or something :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not true. There is NO evidence. Read my last post. EO 11110 did not remove power from the Fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep that`s my understanding ,it was going to remove the power from the fed but Eo 11110 died with Kennedy

  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 36 in octal.
  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 30 in decimal.
  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 1E in hexadecimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how people both moan about QE (money printing) with one breath, then complain about paying interest on government borrowing with another. What a strange world of contradictions we live in.

What is QE if it isn't 'debt free' money?

They say more money is borrowed to pay the interest, yet running a surplus would pay down the debt just as well. Ah, but then there is 'teh deflation!!!!!!' to worry about, right? So what is it to be?

Any individual or group of individuals (e.g. government, businesses etc) can borrow money. Either can lead to a 'stimulus' as the new credit finds its way into peoples' hands. However, in both cases it must be paid back. This was inevitable, when the first bout of borrowing was undertaken.

The real question is not about whether borrowing should garner interest, but why does the government borrow at all? Toys for today, with the bill to the babies. The wealthy bond holders cream off risk free yield on their capital, from the hard workers and those soon to be born into bondage. Ethical? Fair? I think not.

Forget this 'debt free' money nonsense and start asking the government to stop borrowing and balance the budget. It's not rocket science.

P.S. Forget this money from 'thin air' nonsense too. All credit is just promises of future productivity, whether via public or private sector borrowing. Get over it!

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 36 in octal.
  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 30 in decimal.
  • The number 11110 in binary system is equal to number 1E in hexadecimal.

Lost me there Eo =executive order on this thread any way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say more money is borrowed to pay the interest, yet running a surplus would pay down the debt just as well. Ah, but then there is 'teh deflation!!!!!!' to worry about, right? So what is it to be?

repudiate the debt and have a free market in money.

Forget this 'debt free' money nonsense and start asking the government to stop borrowing and balance the budget. It's not rocket science.

I don't really care whether the gov't p1sses away my money paying interest or p1sses it away on something else instead, I just wish they didn't steal my money in the first place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how people both moan about QE (money printing) with one breath, then complain about paying interest on government borrowing with another. What a strange world of contradictions we live in.

What is QE if it isn't 'debt free' money?

They say more money is borrowed to pay the interest, yet running a surplus would pay down the debt just as well. Ah, but then there is 'teh deflation!!!!!!' to worry about, right? So what is it to be?

Any individual or group of individuals (e.g. government, businesses etc) can borrow money. Either can lead to a 'stimulus' as the new credit finds its way into peoples' hands. However, in both cases it must be paid back. This was inevitable, when the first bout of borrowing was undertaken.

The real question is not about whether borrowing should garner interest, but why does the government borrow at all? Toys for today, with the bill to the babies. The wealthy bond holders cream off risk free yield on their capital, from the hard workers and those soon to be born into bondage. Ethical? Fair? I think not.

Forget this 'debt free' money nonsense and start asking the government to stop borrowing and balance the budget. It's not rocket science.

P.S. Forget this money from 'thin air' nonsense too. All credit is just promises of future productivity, whether via public or private sector borrowing. Get over it!

It's a shame you don't frequent the other forum anymore. If you'd stuck around you might have a better handle on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame you don't frequent the other forum anymore. If you'd stuck around you might have a better handle on the subject.

I stopped posting there after Bill censored my posts after I dared to suggest that precious metals could be used as free market money. It seemed it was printed money or the highway, which was no good for my open mind.

You talk as if government borrowing is magical; it isn't. The only magical thing the government can do is default with no legal come back, either by the printing or the middle finger.

The central banks could QE away all the debt or their governments could just default on the lot. They could then just print enough to keep enough per capita or some such constant. In addition, the government could balance the books and leave the borrowing to individuals in the private sector (hint: I or any company can print bonds from 'thin air' and sell them for cash).

However, hard defaulting will hurt pensioners and foreign investors, as they won't get their money back. Soft defaulting by the printer will devalue all productivity claims against the future, inflating away wealth instead. Either way the future productivity won't occur as previously promised.

EDIT: Typo

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

repudiate the debt and have a free market in money.

Fine by me, but those with bonds (pensioners, foreign investors etc) will lose out.

I don't really care whether the gov't p1sses away my money paying interest or p1sses it away on something else instead, I just wish they didn't steal my money in the first place!

I'd like to see a genuine high vs low vs no tax/spend argument. I'd prefer the middle option, but if the books balance, I'm happy for others to argue the toss for the former or the latter. What I can't abide, is governments borrowing on behalf of those not yet old enough to vote, perhaps not even born. Spending their future productivity on bribes for the voters of today turns my stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that there was a previous US President who tried to introduce monetary reform to the USA.

He said:

“... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...”

His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Unhealthy thing.. monetary reform...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped posting there after Bill censored my posts after I dared to suggest that precious metals could be used as free market money. It seemed it was printed money or the highway, which was no good for my open mind.

You talk as if government borrowing is magical; it isn't. The only magical thing the government can do is default with no legal come back, either by the printing or the middle finger.

The central banks could QE away all the debt or their governments could just default on the lot. They could then just print enough to keep enough per capita or some such constant. In addition, the government could balance the books and leave the borrowing to individuals in the private sector (hint: I or any company can print bonds from 'thin air' and sell them for cash).

However, hard defaulting will hurt pensioners and foreign investors, as they won't get their money back. Soft defaulting by the printer will devalue all productivity claims against the future, inflating away wealth instead. Either way the future productivity won't occur as previously promised.

EDIT: Typo

And you talk about government like it's some kind of entity doing all it can to ruin our lives. The reason, we've never know a real government for the people by the people.

Edited by dom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you talk about government like it's some kind of entity doing all it can to ruin our lives. The reason, we've never know a real government for the people by the people.

Doesn't that suggest to you that such a government is a rarity?

Governments promise voters a land of milk and honey, but forget to mention that their children are going to be paying for it. When the next generation realise that their future productivity has already spent on their parents, they aren't going to be very happy.

If the voters want a government which promises high tax and spending, fair enough. If voters want a government which promises low tax and spending, fair enough. The current parties have been promising low tax and high spending, with the bill passed on to the next generation instead though - not very fair, is it?

BTW, I'm still waiting on your critique of the mechanics of my above posts, but I won't be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.