Chrisforliberty's Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for the ‘Banking/Money’ Category

What Is To Come From Unrest In Egypt?

with 2 comments

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising them…selves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.”
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15 RSV)

“Radical Muslims” is the catchphrase of the age. It is a phrase designed to instill fear which leads to hate, then anger then suffering. Once upon a time, it was barbarians, a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, blacks plotting, women having opinions, etc… The same tactic that has been used to divide and conquer for thousands of years.

Admist chaos, someone always emerges portraying themselves as a restorer, redeemer, bringing a new way that has never been tried before. There is nothing new under the sun.  Egypt is being set up to keep watch over the southern part of the peninsula where the CIA and other intelligence operatives are working to incite violence between Shiites and Sunnis. Expect some more false flag attacks in Yemen, Qatar, the Balkans and Japan within another 6-12 months.  Thus the explanation will be “crisis in the Middle East leads to higher prices” when in fact it is a cover for the further devaluation of the “dollar”.

Mohammed ElBaradei is now being anointed by the corporate media as the possible savior of Egypt.  But even a minimal amount of research will show that he is a Rockefeller/Soros puppet.

It is equally interesting that CNN, Fox News and other portions of the mainstream media are covering this non-stop whereas they practically ignore a presidential candidate like Michael Badnarik or Ron Paul. Why? Because they are aiming for change based on freeing one’s heart and mind. But politics is exactly the opposite.

The main thorn is that Egypt hasn’t established a central bank. So it becomes convenient to get rid of one tyrant whom the global elite has propped up all these decades for one (potentially) that will establish a central bank. The frustration in the streets is real. But they need to be careful about embracing another. If history is any indication, they will unwillingly do so.

The U.S. government (in conjunction with the global elite) have greatly strengthened their military and supported this president in order to keep the oil flowing through their canal to the west.  Sunni and Shite tensions are being heightened all along the southern borders of the Middle East in an effort to cut off the oil flow to the west. He who controls the narrow canals and straits over there–controls the west. The people are sick of this western supported government and want to overthrow it. What will be created in the vacuum? It is likely under a elite funded and backed “Muslim government” (but merely a puppet of the elite), Coptic Christians and Roman Catholics will be persecuted to an even greater extent and the oil flow into our country will trickle–causing unrest in our country similar to this.

Basically the U.S. government has dug our graves while We The People looked the other way for the past century. It is the people themselves who are the true defenders of liberty and they need to not fall into the age old trap of divide and conquer that the elites have used to enslave the people for thousands of years.

We must learn that there is no political solution. Politics basically operates on the mantra of comfort and safety with the condition that you give up your heart, mind and soul. No wonder Jesus gave up political power when tempted.

Written by chrisforliberty

January 29, 2011 at 12:34 am

Posted in Banking/Money, General

The Progressive Era Revisited

with one comment

“NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO CONSCIENTIOUSLY DISCHARGES HIS DUTY WILL DESIRE TO DENY THOSE WHOM HE SERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS HIS OFFICIAL CONDUCT.” William Jennings Bryan, from New York World, 13 August, 1896

It is interesting that the history books either misrepresent the period between 1890-1940 in terms of its socio-economic context or ignore it completely.

Most of our problems on the national scene can be traced to the misdeeds during this period. We can’t hit our opponent if we don’t understand who or what our opponent is.

I’ve written extensively about many of the subtopics connected to this period such as The Federal Reserve’s connection to the The Great Depression, and outlined why it doesn’t matter which party is technically in power. Yes, the Federal Reserve even had a hand in the World Wars and the rise of dictators like Hitler and Stalin. While we are at it, let’s not forget the Rothschild’s connection to all this too.

One of the main opponents to the agenda of John Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan was William Jennings Bryan.  In our modern times, we think of Bryan as only being some sort of right-wing religious zealot (which couldn’t be further from the truth).

Keep in mind that many of the big city newspapers were owned by the same elite cartel that were advocating for an increased role for the Federal government in the daily affairs of the average American. Of course, they were going to commit libel against the most public opponent of the Progressive agenda. It wasn’t the residents of the big cities that Jennings was at odds with, but certain individuals and various special interest groups who just happened to choose the big cities as gathering places.

“I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair state of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the state of New York by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three million in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?”                                                                                                                             as quoted from the Democratic Convention in Harper’s Weekly, 18 July, 1896

It should be obvious the Rockefeller-Morgan connections throughout this whole Progressive Movement. What had happened was business had become increasingly competitive in the late 19th-early 20th century. Morgan and Rockefeller beginning with railroads and oil attempted to establish cartels. But the free-market spirit and public distrust of monopolies in addition to central banking fouled up these attempts. So they managed to hoodwink the masses using the same language of opposition to monopoly as a way to put over monopoly.

Even the Pure Food and Drug Act signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt (a Morgan crony) was done to put mom and pop food operations out of business and enable the further cartelization of the food industry. Do I really need to elaborate on the consequences of this?

The 1896 presidential election while rarely mentioned today was perhaps in its historical perspective the most important election in U.S. history.

One of Morgan’s protégés was Henry Cabot Lodge.  Lodge basically acted as a middle man for Morgan as backstage negotiations were being conducted with the Rockefeller political machine operating out of Ohio. The main contact for the Rockefeller camp was William McKinley’s campaign manager Mark Hanna.

The basic agreement was that Morgan would throw his support to William McKinley in exchange for certain concessions on establishing a central banking structure in the future.

This pooling of votes would neutralize the support that Bryan had amongst certain elements in the Democratic Party who were opposed to central banking, Silver Republicans and various populist elements in the South and Rocky Mountain states.

The Rockfeller and Morgan camps would often be at odds not so much on the overall goal of implementing statism on the free market, but mostly such differences were simply disputes in the overall jockeying of power; basically a clash of egos and wills.  But certainly when it came to the establishment of a central bank, they were literally walking arm in arm.

Shortly after the 1896 election, the Indianapolis Monetary Commission convened for the purpose of discussing and issuing a report on “currency reform”.

This meeting was publicized as business people getting together for a convention. But it was in fact individuals from the Morgan and Rockefeller camps meeting for the purpose of laying the groundwork for a central bank. They met in Indianapolis so as to create the impression that surely nothing bad would ever come out of America’s Heartland as opposed to the image that the public had of evil bankers meeting in New York City or Washington, D.C.

The go-to-man in Congress for both Morgan and Rockefeller was senator Nelson Aldrich.  While Aldrich may have been the congressional connection, the process that it took to implement both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment was to say the least complex.

Which brings us to our current times. Needless to say, while the specific individuals have since long passed away (and are in hell), their work continues today through the system they left behind and gets ever larger.

So do you know who your enemy is?

Written by chrisforliberty

December 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm

What Is The Deal With The Airport Scanners?

with 2 comments

For some of you, this comes as no surprise. Do you remember all that talk last winter about the shoe bomber and Michael Chertoff making the rounds on the networks?

Of course, the mainstream media won’t tell you this, but Michael Chertoff is one of the major investors and Congressional lobbyist for OSI Systems which owns Rapiscan Systems. This is the manufacturer of the airport scanners. Chertoff made a heavy investment in them after leaving the White House last year and signed on to become their lobbyist. It all comes down to the handshakes and back pats.

The CEO is Deepak Chopra. He is not the same Deepak Chopra, the writer on Ayurveda, spirituality and ying-yang.  I first read about this particular Chopra around five years ago. Deepak Chopra was also born in India in 1951. His background is in semiconductors and lighting products. He graduated from Punjab Engineering College in Chandigarh, Punjab, India and has a M.S. in Semiconductor Electronics from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. From 1976 to 1987, he was at ILC Technology, Inc. He has also been with Intel Corporation, TRW Semiconductors and RCA Semiconductors in one shape or form. He has been with OSI Systems as CEO and Chairman of the Board since 1987.

You can contact OSI Systems at OSI Systems, Inc. 12525 Chadron Avenue, Hawthorne, CA 90250 Phone: 310-978-0516 Fax: 310-644-7213

The Sidley Austin law firm that is connected to Obama represents OSI Systems in court matters.  Chopra is also traveling with Obama as he goes through India and makes other trips through the Pacific. Why?

Any global monetary system has to have India on board since it is the best positioned of any country to weather serious global currency problems. India is a thorn in the side of China and Pakistan. The rheortic of war between China and India has heated up and India and Pakistan have been at odds for over 60 years. The elites in those countries have played international affairs very well to set this up.

But don’t take it too personally. When global security (and war) is big business, there are always going to be vultures. So I guess we better let all our friends and neighbors know about this too since they won’t get it from their usual sources of information.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Posted in Banking/Money, Politics

Facts About The Federal Reserve

with one comment

According to some, banks only loan out depositors’ money. But, in fact, they create what they loan out, based on a system known as ‘fractional reserve banking’. This is explained quite succinctly in the following excerpt from the January 1993 edition of National Geographic Magazine, entitled, The Power of Money by Peter T. White, Assistant Editor. (Pages 83-86)

Bills and coins make up about 8 percent of the U.S. money supply — the rest is in bank accounts, including checkbook money; at this writing the sum total is 3.5 trillion dollars, says the Fed — the Federal Reserve System, which is the central bank of the government of the United States — and that is three billion more than a month ago. This is how that happens. Every business day, after a telephone conference call at 11:15 a.m., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, acting on directives from the Federal Open Market Committee at Fed headquarters in Washington, buys U.S. government securities from major banks and brokerage houses, or sells some — usually U.S. Treasury bills, which in effect are government promissory notes.

Say today the Fed buys a hundred million dollars in Treasury bills from those big securities dealers, who keep a stock of them to trade with the public. When the Fed pays the dealers, a hundred million dollars will thereby be added to the country’s money supply, because the dealers will be credited that amount by their banks, which now have that much more on deposit. But where did the Fed get that hundred million dollars ? “We created it,” a Fed official tells me. He means that anytime the central bank writes a check, so to speak, it creates money. “It’s money that didn’t exist before,” he says. Is there any limit on that ? “No limit. Only the good judgement and the conscience of the responsible Federal Reserve people.” And where did they get this vast authority? “It was delegated to them in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, based on the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. ‘Congress shall have the power .. to coin money, regulate the value thereof …’

Now watch how that Fed-created money lets our commercial banking system create even more. The Fed requires banks to put aside a portion of their depositors’ funds as reserves. Say this reserve ratio is set at 10 percent — then for every $1,000 in new deposits, a bank must keep at least $100 in reserves but can loan out the rest, namely $900. On the bank’s books this loan remains as an asset, earning interest until it is paid off. The customer who got the loan is likely to spend it right away, say for a used car. The car dealer deposits the $900 check in his bank, which then has an additional $900 in reserves and can in turn loan out 90 percent of that — $810. And so on and on, until the original $1,000 put into one bank may enable dozens of banks to issue a total of $9,000 in new loans.

Thus a hundred million dollars injected by the Fed into the commercial banking system could theoretically stimulate the appearance of 900 million dollars in new checkbook money — money that didn’t exist before. And it’s all built on the assumption that the system is sound.

Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” Lewis v. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S.

“The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System, as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation’s banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash. Recent researchers, however, have also highlighted the vital supporting role of the growing number of technocratic experts and academics, who were happy to lend the patina of their allegedly scientific expertise to the elite’s drive for a central bank. To achieve a regime of big government and government control, power elites cannot achieve their goal of privilege through statism without the vital legitimizing support of the supposedly disinterested experts and the professoriat. To achieve the Leviathan State, interests seeking special privilege, and intellectuals offering scholarship and ideology, must work hand in hand.” Murray Rothbard, Origins of the Federal Reserve

‎”The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.”
Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

Written by chrisforliberty

November 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Is the Federal Reserve a Federal Government Agency?

leave a comment »

JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.No. 80-5905

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002

March 2, 1982, Submitted

April 19, 1982, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]

As Amended June 24, 1982.

PRIOR HISTORY:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

COUNSEL: Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

JUDGES: Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. n*

* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: POOLE

OPINION: [*1240]

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims [**2] Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976). Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671. “Federal agency” is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under § 2671.

There are no sharp criteria for determining [**3] whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff’d per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955, [*1241] and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. [**4] Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. [**6] 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency’s day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency’s employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status [*1242] of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress’ control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961) [**8] (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In [**9] United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a “public official” under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting “for or on behalf of the Government.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is “substantial federal involvement” in the defendant’s activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S. Ct. 1, 5, 86 L. Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S. Ct. 450, 62 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal [*1243] Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973).

Brink’s Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the “important governmental function” test and concluded that the term “Federal Government” in the Service Contract Act must be “liberally construed to effectuate the Act’s humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government.” Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term “federal agency” for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm

Posted in Banking/Money

Why Obama is going to India?

with 4 comments

US President George W. Bush (2nd-left) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (left) toast Saudi King Abdullah during a dinner at the White House for leaders attending the G20 Summit on Financial Markets November 14, 2008 in Washington, DC. Leaders of the Group of 20 richest economies and emerging economic heavyweights met in Washington to craft a joint strategy to deal with the rapidly spreading global financial crisis (caused by the same people). About two dozen leaders in all attended the dinner in the White House’s State Dining Room.

In early 2009, I blogged the following:

“Unless you have been tuning out (which can be good), you may have noticed that the United States recently sent a “warning” to North Korea and another one to China. Consider the source. Does Weapons of Mass Destruction mean anything to you? I suspect this is a coordinated PR stunt in order to fan the flames. India and Pakistan did it in a big way last year. India falsely claimed Pakistan was behind the attack as a way to distract from its own internal problems and a haste attempt at starting another war.  Fortunately, it didn’t happen. But it could with the right conditions.

Wars are planned and coordinated.  Sure, they are chaotic for the average person, but for the war-mongers and profiteers, it is a game. Poker, chess, Russian Roulette, pick your poison. How is it that the military can move massive amounts of equipment, material and soldiers in such a short amount of time when the average person on the street can’t even give you the time of day? It takes coordination and planning to be able to do all that.”

Speaking of coordination and planning, Obama is taking a “trip” to India as well as Indonesia and South Korea along with around 3,000 people. Beware of falling coconuts! What is really going on in addition to taking in some sights (I don’t mean the kind of places Mother Teresa would be seen in) is that they are making a show of force in a country of a billion people to solidify the adherence of the top level of society to the “Anglo-American” line which in fact has less to do with Americans and British in general and more to do with the global elite specifically i.e. the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Morgan line. Any global monetary system has to have India on board since it is the best positioned of any country to weather serious global currency problems. India is a thorn in the side of China and Pakistan. The rherotic of war between China and India has heated up and India and Pakistan have been at odds for over 60 years. The elites in those countries have played international affairs very well to set this up.

From the globalists’ viewpoint, business needs to further deteroriate in the West, and even China and increase in India. The idea is the more you have, the more you will have to lose and a society that is dependent on technology will not be able to provide basic needs since they are less inclined to put their hands in the dirt. It can be done, but they are less instinctive than say the hunter/gatherer or pioneer.

More business leaders in India need to be brought into lock step with those in the United States and England.  Almost all of the top level of business men and women came from families that worked with England in the time before India’s independence, but many of the people here are set against the multinationals. There are several popular religious TV stations that rail against GMO and promote ownership of solid assets and family values. Many of the mid size companies are run by men who are genuinely devote Buddhist. What’s more, they know the stories about the people at the top having groups declared to be terrorists so they could kill whole villages to put in plants. It’s unheard of to meet a businessman who makes a good income (millions or more) who doesn’t put a large part of their money into farm land, gold etc.

India will continue to grow. The private gold holdings are estimated to be around 30 times what they are in the USA. Salaries are cheap and technical expertise is abundant, even if they can’t match the top level talent in the USA yet. The middle class here is larger than the population of the US, but makes such small salaries that there is tremendous room for growth.

With competitive advantages, vast private gold holdings, short local supply chains, a limited amount of foreign debt on the books and a mostly rural population, India is in an excellent position to deal with a global currency collapse. Thus they are the next target of the elites (primarily bankers, bureaucrats and the Corporatocracy) which harken back to the time of kings and emperors claiming to rule by divine right.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 4, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Posted in Banking/Money, Politics

Yes, Washington, we are in a Depression!

leave a comment »

(Originally published July, 2008)

“All the factors which make for a quick and speedy industrial and economic recovery are present and evident. The Federal Reserve System is operating, serving as a barrier against financial demoralization. Within a few months industrial conditions will become normal, confidence and stabilization in industry and finance will be restored.” William Green, AFL-CIO, November 22, 1929

(The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the current “recession” which began in December 2007 is over. Really?)

So I now read that the Federal Reserve is unveiling “new” rules supposedly aimed at protecting us. Of course, they say nothing about the U.S. Dollar losing almost 100% of its value since 1913.

Officially, no we are not in a recession. The economy is not in recession until a panel at a private institution called the National Bureau of Economic Research says so.  Unofficially, many economists think a recession started six or seven months ago, even as the economy has continued to expand — albeit at a tepid pace.

Basic economics (something they didn’t teach in school) tells us that the more there is of a good, the less valuable it becomes. This is also true of money. The dollar is worth four cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

For example, a house that costs around $150,000 today would have sold in the range of $7,000-$8,000 in 1913. Either Ben Bernanke is a clueless nitwit or really evil depending on his state of mind.

The Federal Reserve creates inflation when it issues US dollars backed by government debt otherwise known as “fractional reserve banking”. The more “money” the Federal Reserve creates – the less your Federal Reserve “money” will buy.

From 1913 to 2001 the national debt grew to $6 trillion. Over the next three years it increased to $7 trillion dollars. In the following year it increased sharply to over $8 trillion dollars. The national debt is now well over $9 trillion dollars! (A little over two years later, it stands at around $13.5 trillion).

Let’s face it people. The Federal Reserve as well as the legislative branch (Congress) and the executive branch (President) are all responsible for this current mess as well as past and inevitably future bubbles and collapses. The ‘Fed’ does not stabilize the economy. If so, why did the Great Depression among other economic calamities occur on their watch? Something to think about.

Written by chrisforliberty

September 21, 2010 at 11:43 am

Posted in Banking/Money