Re: Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by LBJ on the flight from Dallas to DC, immediately after JFK was shot
age...@justicespammail.com
<snip>
>1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive
>Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>Federal Reserve.
Lie.
>Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy
>is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they
>assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to
>print American money for the American people, as oppose to for
>the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.
>
>This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon
>Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963
>to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same
>day as President Kennedy was assassinated.
Which is a lie. Johnson singed no executive orders on November 22,
1963. In fact 11110 has never been revoked or amended.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
Executive Order 11110
Amendment of Executive Order No. 10289, as amended, relating to the
performance of certain functions affecting the Department of the
Treasury
* Signed: June 4, 1963
* Federal Register page and date: 28 FR 5605; June 7, 1963
* Amends: EO 10289, September 17, 1951
But then you don't even know what 11110 says, do you?
Executive Order 11110 - Amendment of Executive Order No. 10289 as
Amended, Relating to the Performance of Certain Functions Affecting
the Department of the Treasury
June 4, 1963
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of
the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as
amended, is hereby further amended --
(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following
subparagraph (j):
"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section
43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to
issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or
standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption
of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations
of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and
subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and
(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act
done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had
or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this
Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as
if said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:fq6vu4tq610uvakom...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>Federal Reserve.
>>
>> Lie.
>
>I am suspect of the source
Then why did you reprint the article?
>>>Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy
>>>is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they
>>>assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to
>>>print American money for the American people, as oppose to for
>>>the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.
>>>
>>>This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon
>>>Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963
>>>to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same
>>>day as President Kennedy was assassinated.
>>
>> Which is a lie. Johnson singed no executive orders on November 22,
>> 1963. In fact 11110 has never been revoked or amended.
>>
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
>>
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
>
>If you can prove youe accusations:
>Please do:
I just did.
>> Executive Order 11110
>> Amendment of Executive Order No. 10289, as amended, relating to the
>> performance of certain functions affecting the Department of the
>> Treasury
>>
>> * Signed: June 4, 1963
>> * Federal Register page and date: 28 FR 5605; June 7, 1963
>> * Amends: EO 10289, September 17, 1951
>>
>> But then you don't even know what 11110 says, do you?
>
>No I don't.
Then why are you posting statements about thing that you know nothing
about?
>I was approx 8 years old athe time.
>I know that money backed by 'intrinsic value' was eliminated in
>1964. I think it was!
We went off the gold standard in 1933, sport.
>But other than that how did you fell about the restof the story?
>Some additional 2000 lines?
It's all garbage. I just picked out something that was easily
disproven to demonstrate that reality.
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:hfq1v4dkp6r440mjk...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 22 Apr 2009 23:05:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:fq6vu4tq610uvakom...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>>> President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>>> Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>>> issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>>
>>>> Lie.
>>>
>>> I am suspect of the source
>>
>> Then why did you reprint the article?
>
>Good Question
>My answer lies in abeyance for now
>
>>>>> Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy
>>>>> is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they
>>>>> assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to
>>>>> print American money for the American people, as oppose to for
>>>>> the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.
>>>>>
>>>>> This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon
>>>>> Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963
>>>>> to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same
>>>>> day as President Kennedy was assassinated.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a lie. Johnson singed no executive orders on November 22,
>>>> 1963. In fact 11110 has never been revoked or amended.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
>>>
>>> If you can prove your accusations:
>>> Please do:
>>
>> I just did.
>
>Sorry Chief,
> I Don't mean to be argumentative,
Yes, you do.
>I clicked both your links. They didn't prove you to be correct to me.
Then you don't know how to read.
>Maybe: my old browser didn't sing and dance to java, javascript, flash etc.
>Therefore your point was lost on me. I don't know! Never-The-Less:
>Should you wish to prove yourself correct you may want to try again, or not.
You have to know how to read.
In:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
The last column gives the disposition of the EO. If you look at EO
11110 and compare it to the others on the list, you see that in every
other case where the particular EO has been revoked, it is noted in
the list. No such notation exists for 11110.
Likewise, in
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
If you look at the other EOs in the list, you see that there is a
notation as to their disposition. If they have been revoked, it is
noted that they were, along with the EO that contained the revocation.
If you want to go one step further, you can look at the list of EOs
for Lyndon Johnson at
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1963-johnson.html
You see that there was NO EO issued by Johnson on 11/22/63.
>> Then why are you posting statements about something that you know nothing
>> about?
>
>Statement?
>What _statement_ do you refer to? I don't recall making any: statement.
>Also: Must I know everything, about everything, else: make no statement?
>There goes my free speech!
>Yours too!
>How Fascist!
>Of you!
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Mark Twain
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:7te3v49fc49k5fh9p...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2009 00:43:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:hfq1v4dkp6r440mjk...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 23:05:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:fq6vu4tq610uvakom...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>>>>> President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>>>>> Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>>>>> issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>>>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lie.
>
>What part is a lie.
What part isn't? Oh, wait, Kennedy did sign EO 11110 on 6/4/63.
> That the Rosthchilds owned: The Fed?
The Rosthchilds didn't and don't own the Fed.
>Because the rest of the entire paragraph is true!
>Can you prove that the Rosthchilds didn't own The Fed back then?
>Is that what you are asserting the: "lie" is.
Anyone with any knowledge regarding the history of banking in the
United States wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.
>>>>> I am suspect of the source
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you reprint the article?
>>>
>>> Good Question
>>> My answer lies in abeyance for now
>
>Because AFAIAC. All Sources Are Suspect.
>Every one of them lies/spins in the direction of their own bias.
>If one didn't post because of that. Nothing would be posted then.
>
>>>>>>> Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy
>>>>>>> is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they
>>>>>>> assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to
>>>>>>> print American money for the American people, as oppose to for
>>>>>>> the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon
>>>>>>> Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963
>>>>>>> to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same
>>>>>>> day as President Kennedy was assassinated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a lie. Johnson singed no executive orders on November 22,
>>>>>> 1963. In fact 11110 has never been revoked or amended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can prove your accusations:
>>>>> Please do:
>>>>
>>>> I just did.
>>>
>>> Sorry Chief,
>>> I Don't mean to be argumentative,
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>
>Amazing powers you have.
>You somehow know my intentions to be other than I expressly
>delared them to be, amazing!
You're arguing, therefore you are being argumentative, sport.
>You see: I am more interested in the truth, than being correct or arguing.
>But, you know otherwise, somehow.
>
>>> I clicked both your links. They didn't prove you to be correct to me.
>>
>> Then you don't know how to read.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure that's it!
>I'm sure, it couldn't be anything else!
Apparently not because the proof was given to you and you either
couldn't read it, couldn't comprehend it, or ignored it.
>>> Maybe: my old browser didn't sing and dance to java, javascript, flash etc.
>>> Therefore your point was lost on me. I don't know! Never-The-Less:
>>> Should you wish to prove yourself correct you may want to try again, or not.
>>
>> You have to know how to read. In:
>>
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-orders-12.html
>>
>> The last column gives the disposition of the EO. If you look at EO
>> 11110 and compare it to the others on the list, you see that in every
>> other case where the particular EO has been revoked, it is noted in
>> the list. No such notation exists for 11110.
>>
>> Likewise, in
>>
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/kennedy.html
>>
>> If you look at the other EOs in the list, you see that there is a
>> notation as to their disposition. If they have been revoked, it is
>> noted that they were, along with the EO that contained the revocation.
>>
>> If you want to go one step further, you can look at the list of EOs
>> for Lyndon Johnson at
>> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1963-johnson.html
>>
>> You see that there was NO EO issued by Johnson on 11/22/63.
>>
>>>> Then why are you posting statements about something that you know nothing
>>>> about?
>>>
>>> Statements?
>>> What _statements_ do you refer to? I don't recall making any: statements.
>
>No reply. Noted.
You got a reply. And you posted statements that you admit that you
know nothing about.
>Ergo: It's a false assertion. Not backed up by anything. IOW, A: Lie!
>I didn't make any statements as you have unsubstantiatedly asserted.
You posted the original material, sport.
>So, you just did the same thing you were bitching about. Lie!
>The difference between us: I'm not the one who made up a lie. You are!
>And possibly the author of the article. Although, we don't know!
>It is possible he just got bad information and didn't know it!
>We don't know! Whether it is an error or a lie!
>So far the only thing we know for sure that is wrong, is that, EO11110 wasn't
>rescinded, which I'll grant you is a: biggie!
>Now how about that Rothschild/Fed thing did they own that in
>63 or no. You have proof of who the fed owners were in 1963 don't you?
Yes, I do. The ownership of the Federal Reserve is well established.
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The
Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in
1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow
Wilson), it is a quasi-public (government entity with private
components) banking system[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially
appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in
Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve
regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities
throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury,
each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other
private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of
non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and
(5) various advisory councils.
And the 12 regional privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:
he Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution
that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and
does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.[citation needed]
The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
banks operating within that region and which are part of the
system.[30] The System derives its authority and public purpose from
the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913. As an independent
institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on
its own without prior approval from Congress or the President.[31] The
members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered
terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political
considerations.[32] The Federal Reserve System's unique structure also
provides internal checks and balances, ensuring that its decisions and
operations are not dominated by any one part of the system. It also
generates revenue independently without need for Congressional
funding. Congressional oversight and statutes, which can alter the
Fed's responsibilities and control, allow the government to keep the
Federal Reserve System in check. Since the System was designed to be
independent whilst also remaining within the government of the United
States, it is often said to be "independent within the
government."[31]
The 12 Federal Reserve banks provide the financial means to operate
the Federal Reserve System. Each reserve bank is organized much like a
private corporation so that it can provide the necessary revenue to
cover operational expenses and implement the demands of the board.
Member banks are privately owned banks that must buy a certain amount
of stock in the Reserve Bank within its region to be a member of the
Federal Reserve System. This stock "may not be sold, traded, or
pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6%
annual dividend.[31] No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever
been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S.
firm.[33] These member banks must maintain fractional reserves either
as vault currency or on account at its Reserve Bank; member banks earn
no interest on either of these. The dividends paid by the Federal
Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for
the lack of interest paid on the required reserves. All profit after
expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the
surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks (and since shares in
ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks are redeemable only at par, the
nominal "owners" do not benefit from this surplus capital); the
Federal Reserve system contributed over $29 billion to the Treasury in
2006.[34]
Let's repeat a key sentence:
No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the
public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm
>So that you can back up your claim that that information is a "lie"
>as you put it. Are there ever any honest mistakes where you come from or is
>everything that is wrong always a "lie"?
>You do have that Rothschilds proof don't you?
>You wouldn't be lying again would you?
>
>>> Also: Must I know everything, about everything, else: make no statement?
>>> There goes my free speech!
>>> Yours too!
>>> How Fascist!
>>> Of you!
>>
>> "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
>>
>> Mark Twain
>>
>Oh I don't think that an error made by someone else, repeated by me,
>makes me a fool, but that is fine with me if you do.
>Remember to apply the same criteria to yourself: Fool!
>How can I say that? Glad you asked. Let me tell you:
>I am absolutely certain that in your life someone else made a mistake
>that you believed and repeated. Therefor using your criteria,
>You are a fool, too! Welcome to: the club.
>Mark Twain just ain't the be all, end all, of: Wisdom.
>
>Here's some more info on EO11110 from: http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy31.htm
I hate to break it to you, but the US Treasury issues all paper money
in the United States through the Federal Reserve, whether they be
Federal Reserve notes or silver certificates. And all of those notes
are printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing for that
purpose.
<snip the unnecessary garbage>
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:su74v49qiik6vjr0h...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2009 16:35:43 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>age...@justicespammail.com related news:7te3v49fc49k5fh9p...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 24 Apr 2009 00:43:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:hfq1v4dkp6r440mjk...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 23:05:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:fq6vu4tq610uvakom...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>>>>>>> President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>>>>>>> Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>>>>>>> issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>>>>>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>
>>>What part is a lie.
>>
>> What part isn't? Oh, wait, Kennedy did sign EO 11110 on 6/4/63.
>>
>>> That the Rosthchilds owned: The Fed?
>>
>> The Rosthchilds didn't and don't own the Fed.
>
>Proof is all you need to back up your statement!
Proof has been given. But you won't accept it.
>>> Because the rest of the entire paragraph is true!
>>> Can you prove that the Rosthchilds didn't own The Fed back then?
>>> Is that what you are asserting the: "lie" is.
>>
>> Anyone with any knowledge regarding the history of banking in the
>> United States wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.
>
>Another unsupported allegation. You're getting good at this!
No, an obvious observation.
>Actually I'm not arguing.
But you are.
>I just informed you that I didn't find your proof there.
>Not necessarily that it wasn't there.
>Not necessarily that I'm right. You are wrong!
>Just that i missed seeing it. Due to some plausibilities enumerated and others
>not even mentioned but: conceived of.
>Now, how is that, arguing: Sport?
And now you're being stupid.
>>> You see: I am more interested in the truth, than being correct or arguing.
>>> But, you know otherwise, somehow.
>>>
>>>>> I clicked both your links. They didn't prove you to be correct to me.
>>>>
>>>> Then you don't know how to read.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'm sure that's it!
>>> I'm sure, it couldn't be anything else!
>>
>> Apparently not because the proof was given to you and you either
>> couldn't read it, couldn't comprehend it, or ignored it.
>
>See possible reasons I missed seeing what you wanted me to see.
There just one possible reason. You're an idiot.
>You know you could've just done what you did in the second place in the first!
I was giving you some credit for intelligence. I see now that was an
incorect assumption on my part.
<snip>
>>> No reply. Noted.
>>
>> You got a reply. And you posted statements that you admit that you
>> know nothing about.
>
>But: You accused me of making the statements. I didn't. The End.
Oh? You got a mouse that types at your keyboard using your email
address for identification?
>>> Ergo: It's a false assertion. Not backed up by anything. IOW, A: Lie!
>>> I didn't make any statements as you have unsubstantiatedly asserted.
>>
>> You posted the original material, sport.
>
>Yes. I did.
>But I didn't Author it.
>You do *know* the difference.
>Don't *You* Sport?
You repeated the statements, sport. You made them in this forum.
>>> So, you just did the same thing you were bitching about. Lie!
>>> The difference between us: I'm not the one who made up a lie. You are!
>>> And possibly the author of the article. Although, we don't know!
>>> It is possible he just got bad information and didn't know it!
>>> We don't know! Whether it is an error or a lie!
>>> So far the only thing we know for sure that is wrong, is that, EO11110 wasn't
>>> rescinded, which I'll grant you is a: biggie!
>>> Now how about that Rothschild/Fed thing did they own that in
>>> 63 or no. You have proof of who the fed owners were in 1963 don't you?
>>
>> Yes, I do. The ownership of the Federal Reserve is well established.
>>
>> The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The
>> Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in
>> 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow
>> Wilson), it is a quasi-public (government entity with private
>> components) banking system[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially
>> appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in
>> Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve
>> regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities
>> throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury,
>> each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other
>> private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of
>> non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and
>> (5) various advisory councils.
>
>Yeah. That owner "well established" in 63 to date is: whom again?
>Be specific! If you can.
It hasn't changed since 1913, sport.
>> And the 12 regional privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:
>
>"Privately Owned Federal Reserve Banks" Do Tell: Who Owns Them Again?
Keep reading.
>> he Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution
>> that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and
>> does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.[citation needed]
>> The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
>> banks operating within that region and which are part of the
>> system.[30]
>
>The System, Eh?
>"independent government institution that has private aspects"
>Can you explain the gibberish?
Why don't you have your mommy or daddy explain it to you?
>> The System derives its authority and public purpose from
>> the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913.
>
>That's the deal they pulled of when no one was there watching and the senate
>hadn't shut down: sine die, right?
>So that the few that were there pulled it off as it were under cover of the
>night, right?
Nope, didn't happen, sport.
>> As an independent
>> institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on
>> its own without prior approval from Congress or the President.[31] The
>> members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered
>> terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political
>> considerations.[32]
>
>> The Federal Reserve System's unique structure also
>> provides internal checks and balances,
>
>Pause For Laughter Here.
>Banksters oversight themselves!
>Israel recently found that they hadn't committed any "war crimes" in Gaza!
>Same system. Internal oversight: my ass!
>Yo Cop! You Do AnyThing Wrong? Internal Affairs:
>Uh, No Man, No! OIC
Internal checks and balances isn't the same as "internal oversight".
You just keep wanting to believe what you want to believe, don't you?
>> ensuring that its decisions and
>> operations are not dominated by any one part of the system.
>
>> It also
>> generates revenue independently without need for Congressional
>> funding.
>
>Whoa!
Why is that such a surprise? The Post Office does the same thing.
>> Congressional oversight and statutes, which can alter the
>> Fed's responsibilities and control, allow the government to keep the
>> Federal Reserve System in check.
Gee, Congressional oversight. How about that.
>> Since the System was designed to be
>> independent whilst also remaining within the government of the United
>> States, it is often said to be "independent within the
>> government."[31]
>
>Um yeah. There's that gibberish agian.
>Maybe you'll've explained it where I pointed it out earlier but: I Doubt It!
>So ah, who owns it again Rothschild, Rockefeller?
Keep reading.
>> The 12 Federal Reserve banks provide the financial means to operate
>> the Federal Reserve System. Each reserve bank is organized much like a
>> private corporation
>
>Corporation Huh?
Just like the Post Office, and Amtrak.
>> so that it can provide the necessary revenue to
>> cover operational expenses and implement the demands of the board.
>
>Answers to: The Board. Not: The People, huh? IC.
You really can't comprehend more than two or three words at a time can
you?
>> Member banks are privately owned banks that must buy a certain amount
>> of stock in the Reserve Bank within its region to be a member of the
>> Federal Reserve System.
>
>Stockholders?
>Rothschild majority share owners, hmm?
Again, you really just can't read and comprehend English can you?
>> This stock "may not be sold, traded, or
>> pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6%
>> annual dividend.
>
>Guaranteed 6%. Not bad, eh?
Which is to cover operating costs. The rest of any money that is made
is returned to the United States government.
>> [31] No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever
>> been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S.
>> firm.
>
>Okay! So who's got it then?
>First Base! Every Penny? Who Does!
Read, stupid, read.
>> [33] These member banks must maintain fractional reserves either
>> as vault currency or on account at its Reserve Bank; member banks earn
>> no interest on either of these.
>
>Either or huh?
Idiot.
>> The dividends paid by the Federal
>> Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for
>> the lack of interest paid on the required reserves.
>
>Help Me Rhonda
You need it.
>> All profit after
>> expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the
>> surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks
>
>Wonder which way it goes?
What difference does it make? It doesn't go to any private individual
or individuals.
>> (and since shares in
>> ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks are redeemable only at par, the
>> nominal "owners"
>
>Rothschild? Rockefeller?
God you are so stupid.
>> do not benefit from this surplus capital);
>
>Imagine that, dear reader, there you are:
>fistfulls of "surplus capital" to no bnefit.
>Semantical?
That's not what it says.
>> the
>> Federal Reserve system contributed over $29 billion to the Treasury in
>> 2006.[34]
>
>You wipe my ass, I wipe yours.
>One hand washes the other.
I don't see the Rothchilds name mentioned.
>> Let's repeat a key sentence:
>> No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the
>> public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm
>
>Ergo it was sold, deeded, transferred to who, how?
Can you not understand a single word of English?
>And: Who owned it in 1963.
The member banks who must by law buy stock.
> Perhaps you forgot the question.
No, but you're so stupid that you don't understand the answer.
>Privately Owned. Huh, Chief?
By the member banks.
>Not: "The People"
Indirectly, yes, the people. Anyone who owns any stock in any bank in
the Federal Reserve system, indirectly "owns" a part of the Federal
Reserve.
>>> So that you can back up your claim that that information is a "lie"
>>> as you put it. Are there ever any honest mistakes where you come from or is
>>> everything that is wrong always a "lie"?
>>> You do have that Rothschilds proof don't you?
>>> You wouldn't be lying again would you?
>
>No proof!
There's plenty of proof. It's just that you're too stupid to
comprehend.
>Too Bad!
>Just A Bunch Of Lawyer Obfuscation!
>Sad Really.
>If the truth were honorable; It would be obvious,
>not couched in lawyerly language.
It is obvious if one is not as stupid as you are.
>>>>> Also: Must I know everything, about everything, else: make no statement?
>>>>> There goes my free speech!
>>>>> Yours too!
>>>>> How Fascist!
>>>>> Of you!
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
>>> Oh I don't think that an error made by someone else, repeated by me,
>>> makes me a fool, but that is fine with me if you do.
>>> Remember to apply the same criteria to yourself: Fool!
>>> How can I say that? Glad you asked. Let me tell you:
>>> I am absolutely certain that in your life someone else made a mistake
>>> that you believed and repeated. Therefor using your criteria,
>>> You are a fool, too! Welcome to: the club.
>>> Mark Twain just ain't the be all, end all, of: Wisdom.
>>>
>>> Here's some more info on EO11110 from: http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy31.htm
>>
>> I hate to break it to you, but the US Treasury issues all paper money
>> in the United States through the Federal Reserve,
>
>Transferred at what 6%?
No, stupid.
>> whether they be
>> Federal Reserve notes or silver certificates. And all of those notes
>> are printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing for that
>> purpose.
>>
>> <snip the unnecessary garbage>
>
>Unecessary garbage nust've scared the living shit out of you.
>Else: No need to hide it!
>Ladies & Gentleman:
>From the preceeding I'd say we're dealing with: A tool, Agent.
>See ya: Punk-Kin
One can only wish.
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:41k4v456nf7v93k3t...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2009 22:02:53 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>age...@justicespammail.com related news:su74v49qiik6vjr0h...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 24 Apr 2009 16:35:43 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>age...@justicespammail.com related news:7te3v49fc49k5fh9p...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Apr 2009 00:43:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:hfq1v4dkp6r440mjk...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 23:05:49 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> age...@justicespammail.com related news:fq6vu4tq610uvakom...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>>>>>>>>> President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>>>>>>>>> Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>>>>>>>>> issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>What part is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> What part isn't? Oh, wait, Kennedy did sign EO 11110 on 6/4/63.
>>>>
>>>>> That the Rosthchilds owned: The Fed?
>>>>
>>>> The Rosthchilds didn't and don't own the Fed.
>>>
>>>Proof is all you need to back up your statement!
>>
>> Proof has been given. But you won't accept it.
>
>Must've missed it. Who owns the fed?
Sorry, but I'm not going to explain it to you again, especially since
you seem incapable of comprehending English.
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:ro56v4hkn02kvg5pb...@4ax.com:
>Can't prove it's not The Rothschilds then eh?
Yes, I proved that.
>Then *you* shouldn't have said it was a: "lie"!
It is a lie.
>Your assertion that The Rothschilds owning "The Fed" is a: "lie"
I never asserted that the Rothschilds owned the fed.
>Is nothing more than an unsubstntiated allegation. IOW:
>In fact, probably nothing more than another: "lie" from: *you*!
>As, you can't tell anyone in plain english, who the majority stockholder
>in "The Fed" is by: Name! Either, then! Or, now!
I already told you, sport.
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The
Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in
1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow
Wilson), it is a quasi-public (government entity with private
components) banking system[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially
appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in
Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve
regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities
throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury,
each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other
private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of
non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and
(5) various advisory councils.
And the 12 regional privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:
The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution
that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and
does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.
The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
banks operating within that region and which are part of the
system.
The System derives its authority and public purpose from
the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913. As an independent
institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on
its own without prior approval from Congress or the President. The
members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered
terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political
considerations. The Federal Reserve System's unique structure also
provides internal checks and balances, ensuring that its decisions and
operations are not dominated by any one part of the system. It also
generates revenue independently without need for Congressional
funding. Congressional oversight and statutes, which can alter the
Fed's responsibilities and control, allow the government to keep the
Federal Reserve System in check. Since the System was designed to be
independent whilst also remaining within the government of the United
States, it is often said to be "independent within the
government."
The 12 Federal Reserve banks provide the financial means to operate
the Federal Reserve System. Each reserve bank is organized much like a
private corporation so that it can provide the necessary revenue to
cover operational expenses and implement the demands of the board.
Member banks are privately owned banks that must buy a certain amount
of stock in the Reserve Bank within its region to be a member of the
Federal Reserve System. This stock "may not be sold, traded, or
pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6%
annual dividend. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever
been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S.
firm. These member banks must maintain fractional reserves either
as vault currency or on account at its Reserve Bank; member banks earn
no interest on either of these. The dividends paid by the Federal
Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for
the lack of interest paid on the required reserves. All profit after
expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the
surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks (and since shares in
ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks are redeemable only at par, the
nominal "owners" do not benefit from this surplus capital); the
Federal Reserve system contributed over $29 billion to the Treasury in
2006.
Let's repeat a couple of key sentences:
The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
banks operating within that region and which are part of the
system.
No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the
public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm.
Now why don't you pack up your bags and go away, troll.
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:fvr6v45cf44sv5ish...@4ax.com:
>No! *You* Didn't!
Yes, I did.
>>> Then *you* shouldn't have said it was a: "lie"!
>>
>> It is a lie.
>
>Prove It!
>What is the Name of the majority stockholder in "the fed"
>both now and then?
>
>>> Your assertion that The Rothschilds owning "The Fed" is a: "lie"
>>
>> I never asserted that the Rothschilds owned the fed.
>
>That's not what it is says! Read it again.
Yes, sport, that is exactly what it says.
>*You* really do have trouble with: "plain english"!
>The phrase "stop digging" mean anything to you?
Obviously it doesn't to you.
>>> Is nothing more than an unsubstntiated allegation. IOW:
>>> In fact, probably nothing more than another: "lie" from: *you*!
>>> As, you can't tell anyone in plain english, who the majority stockholder
>>> in "The Fed" is by: Name! Either, then! Or, now!
>>
>> I already told you, sport.
>
>Screw you!: Chump.
>
>BS <Snipped>
>
>What's that name, again?: punk-kin?
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:npp8v4pv84e55kqpn...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2009 01:13:26 GMT, My Name <n...@e-mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President of the United States 1961 - 1963) signs Executive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What part is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What part isn't? Oh, wait, Kennedy did sign EO 11110 on 6/4/63.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That the Rosthchilds owned: The Fed?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Rosthchilds didn't and don't own the Fed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proof is all you need to back up your statement!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proof has been given. But you won't accept it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Must've missed it. Who owns the fed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to explain it to you again, especially since
>>>>>> you seem incapable of comprehending English.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't prove it's not The Rothschilds then eh?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I proved that.
>>>
>>> No! *You* Didn't!
>>
>> Yes, I did.
>
>No! _You_ Haven't!
Read the following again.
>> The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
>> banks operating within that region and which are part of the
>> system. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the
>> public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm.
>
>People Own: Stock.
No, sport, not exclusively. Keep showing the world what a stupid
idiot you are.
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:71s9v4h8c4hsm5707...@4ax.com:
>Yes sport,
> Sad to say:
>In The End: (The Fed), It All Comes Down To "Just Plain Folks".
>'Hunt' For: Which "Folks Own "The Fed": Rothschilds?
>
>not exclusively.
>
>OIC
>Rockefellers, Who Else?
>Oh That's Right, *You*: Don't Know, Can't Say, Won't Say.
>Pick One:
I did say:
age...@justicespammail.com
>age...@justicespammail.com related news:bphcv41i29f7od8rf...@4ax.com:
>Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Hunts, Which Peoples Names Own Those Stocks?
>Someone did/does own that stock as, 'people' ultimately own all stocks.
>And even you (indirectly) admit: The Federal Reserve is owned by people
>via stock as you keep repeating.
No, sport, the Federal Reserve is not owned by people via stock. Learn
to read and comprehend English.
"The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
banks operating within that region and which are part of the
system. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to
the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm."
>You Just Don't Know, Can't Say, Won't Say
>Which People Own That Stock. Ergo you'll never be able to prove your
>assertion to be the truth that: The Rothschilds owning "The Fed" is a: "lie"!
>You sure haven't proven Rothschild didn't/doesn't own that stock in the majority!
>So far the only proven liar here is: YOU! You'll never admit the truth!
>So, as far as I can see, I'm done here. c ya
You were done before you even started.
>> The banks operating within that region and which are part of the system.
age...@justicespammail.com
<snip>
>> No, sport, the Federal Reserve is not owned by people via stock. Learn
>> to read and comprehend English.
>>
>> "The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the
>> banks operating within that region and which are part of the
>> system. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to
>> the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm."
>>
>>> You Just Don't Know, Can't Say, Won't Say
>>> Which People Own That Stock. Ergo you'll never be able to prove your
>>> assertion to be the truth that: The Rothschilds owning "The Fed" is a: "lie"!
>>> You sure haven't proven Rothschild didn't/doesn't own that stock in the majority!
>>> So far the only proven liar here is: YOU! You'll never admit the truth!
>>> So, as far as I can see, I'm done here. c ya
>>
>> You were done before you even started.
>
>Apparently: Not!
Yes, you were.
>Sorry: Sport!
>But, it has come to my attention who the stockholders are.
>Read 'em, And Weep!
>
>Source: 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.
>
>OWNERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
>
>Most Americans, if they know anything at all about the Federal Reserve,
>believe it is an agency of the United States Government.
>This article charts the true nature of the "National Bank."
Except all of those companies and banks are not owned by the
Rothchilds. They are public corporations.
You are such an idiot.
