Slashdot Mirror

Then, that does give some weight to what I've read recently that the Federal Reserve bank is constitutionally illegal?!?! They are privately owned, not a branch of the Federal Govt. This is a new argument to me, and I'd not known it in the past, but, it bears some looking into...?

Reference 1 and Reference 2 ....are among many links I found Google pertaining to this.

Any opinions out there? I've read on some sites, that if we did away with the Fed tomorrow...we could wipe out our debt almost overnight...due to the bonds and such they give out...and the Fed. Govt. would then own the money it has 'borrowed' from the Fed....

I don't know much about finances, but, it sounded interesting.

This is probably not something in 'mainstream' legal culture, but there is a legal theory that you can use the Uniform Commercial Code to your advantage. See http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/ucc4.htm Basically, you sign a document (such as a check) with "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" and you are able to protect yourself from 'hidden clauses' and 'hidden contracts'. I had a rubber stamp made for my checks, and this is how I sign them, it is recommended. I have never had to try this in court. It may not be of real legal value, but it was only a couple of dollars for the stamp and it may end up saving me a lot in the long run. Yes, I did read the part in the referenced article where in court you have to prove you know what that part of the UCC is about, and you can be sure I will have it all memorized if I ever have to go to court.

Meet Joe Sixpack

Or, how about a URL?

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/4fun/bigbang.htm

You may also find it disturbing to know how an administrative procedure can remove your children from you. In 1921 Congress passed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act that created the United States birth "registration" area (see Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 135, 1921.) That act allows you to register your children when they are born. If you do so, you will get a copy of the birth certificate. By registering your children, which is voluntary, they become Federal Children. This does several things: Your children become subjects of Congress (they lose their state citizenship). A copy of the birth certificate is sent to the Department of Vital Statistics in the state in which they were born. The original birth certificate is sent to the Department of Commerce in the District of Columbia. It then gets forwarded to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) building in Europe. Your child's future labor and properties are put up as collateral for the public debt.

NASA's human rights injuries, be damned.

There is pleanty to critisize about the government, so lying to support a tenuous point is hardly necessary. The link you supplied discusses abuses foisted on the American public by the Pentagon and a few other government agencies. NASA is mentioned once, in passing, with no direct references or credibile, verifiable sources to support their inclusion. The phrase you chose to reference the link directly implies otherwise.

Yes, Congress has to deal with paying for the outrageousness of the Bush administration's poor decisions regarding Iraq, and personally I think that is the real driving issue, along with the medicare fiasco. The rest is complete supposition. While I don't doubt some find it interesting, there's no need to create contention by being dishonest when we already have more than enough to go around.

FTA: A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon.

I believe this happened for a few reasons:

1. War
2. Sympathy
3. Elections

War: The spending on the war has caused so many problems in the US that it's hard to fathom any budget increases for any program, other than a military one. Take into account the huge chunk of cash moved into Iraq and you have yourself some questions. Is it prudent to be offering extra money to spend on space when so much money is going to killing resistance fighters, terrorists and occasional Iraqi civilians? Not to mention the costs of rebuilding the country that was bombed into the stone age, for whatever reason.

Sympathy: Dogbert says that if you want to get more funding, you should have your funding publicly slashed and burned for about a year. The sympathy you get will cause your funding increases to double in the next year, and the year after that. Part of the problem with getting new funding is that the old funding can be perceived as too fat if it hasn't been cut recently. Having funding cut will help obfuscate your motives for even more padding in the years to come.

Elections: By cutting the funding to NASA, this will show people that it's an election year and it's important to vote. I'm not sure which party will benefit from these cuts more, yet it's important for everyone that more people go and vote. People everywhere love NASA for their space exploration because most human beings want to pretend they can be members of a space faring race, like on Star Trek. NASA's human rights injuries, be damned.

But it's an unsustainable illusion of equilibrium since the debt continues to grow. What, then, will happen in a few decades when the payment on this debt can no longer be borne, and the growing financial crisis can no longer be ignored?

Do we then privatise the nation's water supply and other natural resources? The bankers will be calling all the shots at that point.

Already, the Fed Chairman is specifying radical changes to Social Security. We will certainly obey him, because:
"When a government is dependent for money upon bankers, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes....Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain." - Napoleon

We can foresee the ultimate playout of America's predicament as demonstrated many times thoughout history, and already in smaller economies of today. Look at Venezuela, or Brazil... or anyone else on the long list of countries which have leveraged themselves to the point of bankruptcy with the assistance of international finance and central banking. When a foreigner says, "where I come from, the central bank owns you," they are not overstating by much.

The way I see it, a major battle between central bankers and first-world taxpayers is inevitable. The sooner this confrontation takes place, the less traumatic or (God forbid) militarized it will have to be.

You're right, that messing with these power-brokers is can be hazardous to one's health. (Just ask Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy about their splitting headaches.) Also notice that you don't see me signing my posts.

But even in America, this confrontation has happened before. The Federal Reserve corporation is actually the third central bank of the United States.

For a history lesson, see:
WHY OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT THE FED

But it's an unsustainable illusion of equilibrium since the debt continues to grow. What, then, will happen in a few decades when the payment on this debt can no longer be borne, and the growing financial crisis can no longer be ignored?

Do we then privatise the nation's water supply and other natural resources? The bankers will be calling all the shots at that point.

Already, the Fed Chairman is specifying radical changes to Social Security. We will certainly obey him, because:
"When a government is dependent for money upon bankers, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes....Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain." - Napoleon

We can foresee the ultimate playout of America's predicament as demonstrated many times thoughout history, and already in smaller economies of today. Look at Venezuela, or Brazil... or anyone else on the long list of countries which have leveraged themselves to the point of bankruptcy with the assistance of international finance and central banking. When a foreigner says, "where I come from, the central bank owns you," they are not overstating by much.

The way I see it, a major battle between central bankers and first-world taxpayers is inevitable. The sooner this confrontation takes place, the less traumatic or (God forbid) militarized it will have to be.

You're right, that messing with these power-brokers is can be hazardous to one's health. (Just ask Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy about their splitting headaches.) Also notice that you don't see me signing my posts.

But even in America, this confrontation has happened before. The Federal Reserve corporation is actually the third central bank of the United States.

For a history lesson, see:
WHY OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT THE FED

american hypersonic plane design that flys in the highest regions of the atmosphere where there is low drag and actually skims on top of the atmosphere . It flys way higher than concorde. hypersoar

Federal spending is not what makes the United States a great country. The American Experiment was not an experiment with strong central power; that had been done for years and was the very thing the American Revolutionaries were escaping. The United States constitution was constructed to balance the needs for some federal power (the Articles of Confederation gave it almost none!) while serverly restricting the excercise of those powers.

I could not disagree with you more with regard to a new amendment abolishing the 9th and 10th amendments that Congress holds in such disdain. Instead, I am for a return to Federal constitutionally correctness and the ouster of those Representatives and Senators that fail to live up to their oaths of office. What does "promoting national growth and standards" conflict with a small, constitutionally correct Federal government? I'm somewhat bothered by government "promoting growth" of any fashion; should not a liberated people be left to achieve what they can imagine? How did the United States ever survive the Nineteenth Century without the programs of the New Deal or the Great Society? Remember: the "General Welfare Clause" is in the preamble, not Article I.

For what it's worth, I'm for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, as it silenced the voice of the States in Federal Government, giving power to the People that was originally intended for States to hold.