ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/01/2014 08:17 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Economy
ATM Fees Rising
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you support stricter gun laws?
  Latest Events
10/01/2014 07:31 PM
mcink2 receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Georgia Woman Spends One Month in Jail After Police Mistook Her SpaghettiOs for Meth'
10/01/2014 06:40 PM
H. W. Hutchins receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Mayor of LA Suburb Shot and Killed by Wife'
10/01/2014 05:55 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'New Breast Cancer Drug Extends Survival by 16 Months'
10/01/2014 05:55 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of '600-Year-Old Canoe Found in New Zealand'
10/01/2014 05:54 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Mayor of LA Suburb Shot and Killed by Wife'
10/01/2014 05:53 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Tiger Woods to Open Restaurant in Jupiter, Florida'
10/01/2014 05:53 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Georgia Woman Spends One Month in Jail After Police Mistook Her SpaghettiOs for Meth'
10/01/2014 05:51 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Roller Coaster Decapitates Deer'
10/01/2014 05:50 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Donald Trump Accidentally Retweets That He Was "Big Inspiration" to Serial Killers'
10/01/2014 04:22 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'New Breast Cancer Drug Extends Survival by 16 Months'
  3.836 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/05/2009 03:21 PM ID: 77424 Permalink   

Federal Reserve Give $2 Trillion Out in Secret

 

It has been found that the Federal Reserve gave out $1.9 trillion in credit recently, but refuses to release the names of the borrowers. The Federal Reserve is contending that that it is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

New Jersey Representative Scott Garrett (R) said, “At some point, the demand for transparency is paramount to any demand that they have for secrecy.” Bloomberg filed the suit on Nov. 7th under the US FOI Act against the Federal Reserve.

Bloomberg’s request states the need for obtaining the lists, “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.”

 
  Source: www.bloomberg.com  
    WebReporter: slavefortheman Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  48 Comments
  
  So...  
 
We're going to give out your money. You cannot know who we gave it to, because we said so. We're not subject to your rules.

Now sit down, shut up and work away your pathetic little lives in order to make us rich.

Tell me - what is the difference between the current system and the old feudal systems?
 
  by: chiffington   03/05/2009 03:33 PM     
  hmmm..  
 
I can guarantee you I didn’t get the loan. That rules out me, which would leave how many other possibilities?
 
  by: white devil   03/05/2009 03:45 PM     
  .,.,.  
 
2 trillion? I love it when the fed put this image of "partnership" with Congress last year but now are shielding themselves of any transparency, which technically they are allowed to, but still is not prudent during these times but what do they care.
 
  by: rj712   03/05/2009 04:13 PM     
  Um..  
 
"The Federal Reserve is contending that that it is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests."

Uh yeah it does.

Who the hell got it?

And are we sure we aren't communists anymore? I mean they are telling us how much we should be making now..
 
  by: Jediman3     03/05/2009 04:37 PM     
  Last missing thing is a cult of personality...  
 
We have a system that is mirroring that of the later Soviet Union. In military spending, corruption, unsound fiscal spending, wars, etc.

Hell the same nation that helped to bankrupt the Soviets (Afghanistan) is now doing the same to us along with Iraq. We seem hell bent on digging this financial hole deeper instead of trying to climb out of it...

If the federal government keeps up its current rate of spending, this "government of the people" shall perish from the earth. Hopefully along with it, all the corruption, lies, deceit and murder will come to an end.

Unless this system is replaced with a worse one, I can only see this as a good thing. Albeit a painful experience for our generation. Sadly these economic collapses are usually followed by wars.
 
  by: slavefortheman     03/05/2009 05:04 PM     
  @chiffington  
 
The difference - we have a better "marketing" campaign now to make swallowing easier.
 
  by: snowztorm29     03/05/2009 06:18 PM     
  @Chiffington  
 
You're not going to like this, but here are the facts. Fact number one: the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter the Fed), although created by Congress, is answerable not to the public but to itself. The system is nominally controlled by member banks, i.e., all national banks plus some state banks, but real power rests with the board of governors in Washington. Fact number two: the Fed's chairman (currently Ben S. Bernanke) and board of governors are appointed for long terms by the president but can't be removed by him and don't report to him or anybody else. Fact number three: it was done that way for your own good supposedly.

So [Sarc]Now sit down, shut up and work away your pathetic little lives in order to make us rich.[/sarc] LOL

It is one system that is screwing up us Americans while we are cheering!
 
  by: chakubanga1   03/05/2009 06:30 PM     
  Take Action  
 
Sadly, the Federal Reserve is NOT subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Why? Because the Federal Reserve is NOT part of the government. It is a private organization. Why did the government give a near-total power over money to a private company? So that they would not be subject to legal transparency.

Currently, in the House, Rep. Paul has proposed a bill, HR 1207, which would force the Reserve to open it's books for review. Write your representative and let them know about your support of this bill, and the necessity of taking back our economy.
 
  by: Prehesiod   03/05/2009 06:34 PM     
  @Prehesiod  
 
One thing I am worried about is if we did ever get to see that data. If the M3 data was published I am betting the dollar would collapse overnight. It would become worth maybe only 1/3 of its current value.

Estimates show that the supply of dollars increased almost 300% last year. Meaning your dollar is actually only worth about 0.33 but since this data is withheld by the federal reserve, we cannot tell and so nobody knows how inflated our currency really is.
 
  by: slavefortheman     03/05/2009 07:25 PM     
  wow!  
 
End the FED !!!!

This is only gonna get worse. I think there needs to be a new system of exchange The monetary system is used & abused !
 
  by: zeke   03/05/2009 07:33 PM     
  No longer surprised  
 
Secrecy and deception are quickly becoming the trademarks of this administration.

First Obama boxed up his campaign promises and drove them to the nearest garbage-dump.

Now, the Obama presidency is pulling the curtains tight to prevent anyone looking in from getting a clear picture of his direction and intentions. Not just with this covertly conducted $2-tril handout, but in its transparency with Congress as well.

Senator Byrd (WV Democrat Senator) openly chastised Obama’s unprecedented power-grab and his intentional fogging of the windows to prevent transparency in regards to his administration’s actions. Byrd is but one of many that are questioning Obama’s quest for omnipotence.

“President Obama's czar system concerns some”
http://www.latimes.com/...


And the deception!
Yesterday, Politico uncovered the White House strategy to enlist the left-wing media to besmirch Limbaugh and portray him as “the face” of the Republican party.
Yes, all these Limbaugh stories have been the result of the Obama administration drawing cross-hairs on a radio-commentator that openly disagrees with it.
What sort of theme does that convey? Silence any voice of opposition and if you can’t silence them, smear their name, take their quotes out of context, and manipulate public opinion of the person with the aid of the mainstream media? Is this what this new administration is about?

I have begun a forum thread about the White House’s plans to silence it’s most vocal opposition. What do the rest of you feel about this Soviet-style attack on free speech and the messenger?


Change We Can Believe In™? Only if you were believing in a change for the worst.
 
  by: CArnold     03/05/2009 07:33 PM     
  @Jediman3  
 
No they are not, because, quite simply, the Federal Reserve only exists on paper. If I remember correctly anyways. Try and look up who 'owns' it.
 
  by: importfanaticr34   03/05/2009 07:34 PM     
  Forum Thread Link  
 
Its a pretty good article.
It gives you some insight as to how this administration is operating:

"We can't legally silence you until we revoke that pesky "right to free speech" thing in the Constitution. Until then, we'll pummel you with bad press and misinformation as punishment for disagreeing with us."

http://www.shortnews.com/...
 
  by: CArnold     03/05/2009 07:39 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
Its been both Bush and Obama in collusion. This $2Trillion was issued out I think in November. Either way, the fiscal policies over the last 8 years did not change whatsoever with the incoming president. There may be some minor policy changes but overall these 2 admins are identical so far.

Close Guantanamo??? Nope not for at least another year as far as Obama is saying and I'm betting it will still be housing people 2 years or even 4 years from now!

Each person that takes the oath of president, is in the pocket of international bankers interests, plain and simple.

I think both Bush and Obama will become infamous as the presidents that presided over the sinking vessel known as the USA. This is nothing like the great depression. At least back then we had a manufacturing base to fall onto. Another big difference is that back in the depression the US wasnt in debt up to its eyeballs as is the case now. I have spoken with people that lived through the depression and all of them have told me the same thing.

This one is going to be a lot worse.
 
  by: slavefortheman     03/05/2009 08:00 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
The Federal Reserve is not controlled by the executive branch.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/...

No one is silencing anyone CArnold, quit trying to victimize Rush Limbaugh
 
  by: rj712   03/05/2009 08:02 PM     
  @chiffington  
 
"Tell me - what is the difference between the current system and the old feudal systems?"

The difference IMO is that in the feudal system slaves didn't had to pay to for their own slavery.

In our system the slaves takes care of paying the rent, electricity, food etc. that the slave owner in the old system had to provide, but the system are basically the same. Hehe
 
  by: Korzen   03/05/2009 08:05 PM     
  @rj712  
 
"The Federal Reserve is not controlled by the executive branch."

I never said it was. The Federal Reserve is as "federal" as Federal Express. I know this.

Do you honestly think that the president was unaware of this and is without influence?

As SftM mentioned, Bush can also be rolled into this. This isn't just about Obama.

"quit trying to victimize Rush Limbaugh"
The Dems are victimizing Rush. Not me. Read the forum link I provided, then come back and explain to all of us how a campaign run by the administration to smear and besmirch a private citizen is acceptable.
 
  by: CArnold     03/05/2009 08:13 PM     
  Heh  
 
"What do the rest of you feel about this Soviet-style attack on free speech and the messenger?"

I feel they've got years of catching up to do, since "the messenger" has been using his free speech to shoot older messsengers for decades.

"Silence any voice of opposition and if you can’t silence them, smear their name, take their quotes out of context, and manipulate public opinion of the person with the aid of the mainstream media?"

Cindy Sheehan. John Kerry. Vets AND 9/11 widows opposed to the war. Scott McClellan. The above could be about any of them or countless others, and the irony is stiffling. Even ignoring the ongoing smear-crusade by the supposedly independent Right-wing media to focus on the White House, are we supposed to be alarmed after years of Karl Rove and media-manipulation scandals like Valerie Plame and Jeff Gannon that came right from the top?

No, I don't like that politics as usual continue, but let's not pretend that this is a one-sided war. The truth is that guys like Rush benefitted for years from presidential favor, and now they're trying to benefit from presidential disdain. Controversy sells, pity the Obama White House is playing into it.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/05/2009 08:23 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
Yes I honestly believe they could of done this. I am sure they told him after the transaction, however their decisions are independent of the president's.

Ok so I read the article and I do not see any "smearing and besmirching" rather I see a political party just trying to sway public opinion. This is not a new tactic. Do you think Rush Limbaugh is suffering due to his newfound spotlight?

From what the article said he has an unpopular rating with people younger than 40.

The democrats are doing exactly what the article states. There are no other Republican leaders that they can target so they are going for the next best thing.

This is not a one party tactic CArnold.
Oh politics politics politics....do you think there are only liberal PACs and Campaign commitees? Do you think they jsut close up shop after a Presidential election? Do you think the RNC and conservative PACs are twittling their fingers right now???
 
  by: rj712   03/05/2009 08:43 PM     
  @carnold  
 
"The Dems are victimizing Rush. Not me. Read the forum link I provided, then come back and explain to all of us how a campaign run by the administration to smear and besmirch a private citizen is acceptable."

what about him being the defacto leader opf the republican party... HE IS... the republicans (neocons specifically) rally around him like the meesiah that they claim democrats look at obama as.

this is a person that OPENLY called from republicans to subvert democrat in an attempt to keep obama from becomming present by urging all his listeners to vote for hillary (its call operation chaos), they followed it... HE IS THE DE FACTO LEADER... if you disagree look up the word "de facto" (Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established) then look up "leader" (One that leads or guides.)... hence YES, rush limbaugh IS the de facto leader because the neo-cons have made it so by rallying around him as a leader..,. thats what a de facto leader is.

if republican think thats a smear they need to learn what words actually mean in this language rather than using all of the limited brain power to repeat rush limbaugh's talking points which are explicitly far right partisan.

limbaugh besmriches himself by being asshole and a moron on a daily basis.

if you people really want to be taken seriously as INDIVUALS rather than some kind of politcal cult, people like you and crayola need to surgically remove your heads from limbaugh's pompous ass.

and yes before you say it, yes there are many people that need to take a step back from obama's ass too, like that guy in one on his Q&A bust out in tears in praise of obama for leeting him ask a question... and maybe ben; but we'll wait a year and see if the loyalty to a sole politicans remains unwaivering.

but keeping in mind that a spending stimulas like this that the republicans so adamently opposed is also responsible fot the recession in 1991 not becomming a depression like this is turning into. so adamently supporting the stimulas is hardly a bad thing when you look at it in the reality of what has happened economically in the past.

whats funny is republicans have spent more time WHINING about obama putting together a stimulas package in an attempt to revive the US economy in 6-7 weeks than they spent complaining about bush's rampant spending ($5 trillion) in the last 8 years... or for that matter about the 3+ trillion from reagan and bush sr... yet at the same time republicans have no problem bitching about clinton; the only president in the last 30 years to NOT continue america's economy from plummeting completely.

and lets not forget that in less than 1 year of being president, the bush admin mystery LOST 2.3 trillion dollars... that that was even BEFORE 9/11, after which they virtually blew the rest of the money up in the name of imperialism under the guise of fighting terrorism; which largely they caused in the first place to begin with; from in the last 30 years international intervention.

but wouldn't want facts to get in the way of politcal partisanship.


FYI, in america there is no left... even obama and clinton (both bill and hillary) are on the right, though they are simply called centrists by most, and the left by the people in the far right (or people that don't know about centrists)... as for the left wing media... again it doesn't exist, not in america anyways... due to how far to the right the republican (specifically neo-cons) have become anything the the left of the far right (fox) is the left media, in again in america its centrist largely with the exception of a few far right media outlets.

but again thats a problem of perception the people, the neo-con are so far to the right that they are simply unable to distinguish between the left and the center.
 
  by: HAVOC666     03/05/2009 08:56 PM     
  @rj  
 
"Ok so I read the article and I do not see any 'smearing and besmirching' rather I see a political party just trying to sway public opinion. This is not a new tactic."

Neither was Senate fillibustering or citizens protesting the war, but we'd been asked to view those as new threats, as well. It's easier to scare the masses with new things than the same-old, same-old.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/05/2009 08:56 PM     
  LOL@CArnold  
 
Always get a good chuckle when the partisian noise machine fires up....

Always... everybody elses fault, except Bush Republicans...

It's good you critize the left for faults, but imagine if you open up that right eye too and you'll be seeing 20/20!
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   03/05/2009 09:01 PM     
  @Carnold  
 
I log on to Short News just to read your posts and wonder what planet you actually live on and what reality you experience. I'm the first to admit that I can't relate to anything you are about.
 
  by: JonSmith     03/05/2009 09:17 PM     
  @  
 
Sometimes i wonder if there ever again will be a time of action - bloody or not - for people to look back upon as an ideal.
 
  by: HAL 9000   03/05/2009 09:51 PM     
  America may change  
 
but americans will be fine.

Also, I hate to put on my tin foil hat, but I think I gotsta.

The federal reserve is dishing out money to secret military organizations whose goal is to find ways around the 4th amendment.

There I said it. Peace.
 
  by: zatonado001     03/06/2009 12:41 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"Silence any voice of opposition and if you can’t silence them, smear their name, take their quotes out of context, and manipulate public opinion of the person with the aid of the mainstream media?"

I thought you were talking about Obama, not Karl Rove and the previous administration?
 
  by: StringBlade   03/06/2009 02:29 AM     
  If America  
 
was my girlfriend, i wouldn't let her out of the house, cause she is obviously a nut bag.
 
  by: shiftyfarker   03/06/2009 02:57 AM     
  @MoC  
 
“I feel they've got years of catching up to do, since "the messenger" has been using his free speech to shoot older messsengers for decades.”

You justify this? Do you mean to tell me that you believe that private citizens who openly criticize how the government is doing (or not doing) their job or, openly display opposition and decent for reasons of morals and subjective principles should become the target of a government-led harassment campaign?

Limbaugh is a private citizen. He is being attacked for his vocal opinions and analysis of current events, policies, politics, and politicians. Whether he’s being paid for it or not is irrelevant --- they’re not going after him for financial reasons. They’re targeting him for reporting information that may be hurtful to Obama’s image or credibility. He’s challenging his listeners to leave their


Let’s hypothetically suppose this was 2007 and Bush had just created an internal committee whose priority directive was to smear and besmirch Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, or even Oprah because of their open criticisms of him. Would you voice the same opinion that you do now?
After all, each of the pro-left celebrities I’ve mentioned have “…been using his [and her] free speech to shoot older messengers…”

What if, in 2007, Bush had caught wind of some of your posts and decided to silence you by way of coordinated efforts with the media?

Headline in your local paper: “Local Blogger With ‘Pot Possession’ Conviction”.

The hypothetical headline simply serves to illustrate my point; there is no implication that you have a stoner’s past. You could change it to, “Anti-Bush Blogger Lives With Mom” or “Hateful Bush Blogger Is 13yr Old Girl”.

You get my point. Regardless a person’s age, class, or past mistakes, everyone has a voice and it should not be stifled by the government or retaliated against with such contempt as this.

Obama, the members of Congress, and every elected politician - down to local mayors - are servants of The People. Not just “The People” that voted for them – they are committed to “The People”, as a whole; even those that may disagree with them at every turn.

If Limbaugh was an elected leader, then of course his words should be examined at great length. As an elected official, he has the authority to influence and create legislation --- the very laws we live by. The examination of someone wielding such power justifiably begins from the moment that person campaigns and doesn’t cease until that person leaves office. The public is entitled to know about the person soliciting their trust and their vote and whoever fills that void office is still open to inquiries applicable to their official capacity. The People have a right to know who is representing them.

Limbaugh is not an official. He doesn’t have one bit of legislative, judicial, or executive power -- he is a private citizen with an opinion.

Let’s not forget that less than two months ago, many of you were still singing the Bush Blues. (Some of you still are...) Eight years ago, and up to two months ago, many of you weren’t any different from Limbaugh: You were voicing your negative opinions about the administration to an open audience. The ShortNews audience isn’t as large as his 20-million listeners on 600 stations, but its an audience nonetheless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...


“Cindy Sheehan …or countless others, and the irony is stifling.”
Show me one reputable article that demonstrates that Bush’s administration did the same to private citizens. Just one.

“The truth is that guys like Rush benefitted for years from presidential favor, and now they're trying to benefit from presidential disdain.”

“…trying to benefit from presidential disdain” ? There is no “try”.
Limbaugh is reaping the benefits because his name is incessantly echoed throughout the White House and the press continue to prop him into a more visible position. His audience is widening and those that hadn’t considered listening to him now are. The Dems are quickly becoming the masters of their own demise.
 
  by: CArnold     03/06/2009 03:39 AM     
  ^Wow  
 
CArnold, That's an echo of an argument I heard earlier today, right off the top stack of limbaugh talking points I take it.

I think it's a mistake to even waste time mentioning Rush Limbaugh, it's only going to galvanize the hate and it's not going to change anyones mind one way or the other.

So the new argument I hear from the right is that "it's wrong to shoot the messenger"(Rush), while at the same time moaning that it's unfair the Bush-R administration took this country 1 step forward and 5 steps back and they're being called out on it, it's everyone elses fault...

Aaaand not only that! It's somehow a massive conspiracy made up of Hollywood, The Media, The Internet, & The Public School System....

It's like bizzaro world when I hear republicans talk these days.

Stop the bs, come back to the Republican platform and people will follow.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   03/06/2009 04:40 AM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
"CArnold, That's an echo of an argument I heard earlier today, right off the top stack of limbaugh talking points I take it."

Perhaps you can be kind enough to dig up the quotes to the talking-points you're referring to.
I'd like to see how they compare to my own personal, deliberate, and independent opinions.

Please provide links.

"...it's unfair the Bush-R administration took this country 1 step forward and 5 steps back and they're being called out on it, it's everyone elses fault..."
Then you I’d love to hear what you call tripling our deficit. All of the lefties that once shouted about the size of the deficit have suddenly become discomforted by the word “deficit”. Perhaps it’s due in part to the $3.6-tril Obama budget being created and multiplying our deficit. And the spending doesn’t end there…
 
  by: CArnold     03/06/2009 06:20 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"You justify this? Do you mean to tell me that you believe that private citizens who openly criticize how the government is doing..."

Save it. When the White House starts using Executive priviledge to silence Limbaugh, then come talk to me. I see no problem with the government responding to a private citizen's remarks, then I'll want to hear your criticism of it. For now, you're not going to sell me on the idea that the spokesperson for modern Neo-conservatism, who wields such power that even members of his own party capitulate to his demands, should be politely tolerated by the people he smears on a daily basis. Hell, I wouldn't even begrudge Bush a response in kind to Michael Moore, not that he's even remotely comparable to Limbaugh.

"Show me one reputable article that demonstrates that Bush’s administration did the same to private citizens. Just one."

I didn't say anything about the administration; if you kept up the topic was "the messenger," right-wing media. I was talking about the smear campaigns you were wailing about, as if you hadn't relished (and participated) in each and every one against the people I mentioned when Limbaugh and his ilk perpetrated them.

"There is no 'try'."

Thanks Yoda, but, "duh." Whether it's entirely stupid of the White House depends on what exactly they're after. Somehow, I don't think they're worried about galvanizing the 11% of you Limbaugh fans under 40. Perhaps they're after the same thing Bush was in egging on the terrorists: cultivating that fighting image. But unlike emboldened suicide bombers, galvanized Limbaugh supporters aren't a threat to others as they die of old age.

Unless maybe they're driving a car at the time, that is.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/06/2009 06:25 AM     
  Correction:  
 
"I see no problem with the government responding to a private citizen's remarks, then I'll want to hear your criticism of it."

-should read-

I see no problem with the government responding to a private citizen's remarks, after all, we all know about Karl Rove's media dirty work. When government power is used, then I'll want to hear your criticism of it.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/06/2009 06:26 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
As far as I'm concerned Rush Limbaugh is NOT a private citizen. He is a media icon (icon to bad taste as far as I'm concerned) and his views were not expressed at his hairdresser's but on the airwaves. If for example I were to tell my dentist that Obama is a so-and-so and the Democrats were to criticize me, THAT would be an attack on a private citizen.
 
  by: konfucius   03/06/2009 07:08 AM     
  @CArnold - Sorry, called you on it.  
 
You:
"The Dems are victimizing Rush. Not me. ...a campaign run by the administration to smear and besmirch a private citizen is acceptable."

Me: "CArnold, That's an echo of an argument I heard earlier today, right off the top stack of limbaugh talking points I take it."

You:
"Perhaps you can be kind enough to dig up the quotes to the talking-points you're referring to.
I'd like to see how they compare to my own personal, deliberate, and independent opinions."

Thought I wouldn't do it, but sorry, I called it. You almost got away with having an original thought CArnold.

Your talking point right off the top of the Limbaugh stack -
Aaaaand *drum roll* : Limbaugh site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/...

Quote:
"Rahm Emanuel is leading the team going after a private citizen, and the Drive-By Media applaud, get on board and help further the mission. We live in different times. So if you can wipe me out -- and, by the way, Mr. President, and Mr. Emanuel: Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm wiping myself out here in the process." - Rush Limbaugh

Ha! Your own original thought... good one.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   03/06/2009 08:36 AM     
  Aerosmith song  
 
Eat the Rich
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/06/2009 04:20 PM     
  FOI Act?  
 
Why would an already criminal organization and otherwise illegal and entirely unconstitutional organization be subject to any laws or regulations?
 
  by: Cristoff Von Mises   03/08/2009 02:26 AM     
  @CVM  
 
I believe that the federal reserve was created by an act of congress. correct me if I'm wrong.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/08/2009 02:29 AM     
  Hot Damn!  
 
I just got a $2 trillion loan, bought Tahiti, declared myself Emperor and nationalized the loan. You guys are screwed.
 
  by: valkyrie123     03/08/2009 02:46 AM     
  @Verm  
 
Article 1 Section 8
 
  by: Rayn     03/08/2009 01:27 PM     
  My Bad  
 
Section 10
 
  by: Rayn     03/08/2009 01:29 PM     
  Sorry Rayn.  
 
Am I correct?
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/08/2009 10:19 PM     
  Ah, I see  
 
Looks more like section 8.

Cristoff Von Mises: How exactly is a system established by the constitution unconstitutional or illegal?
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/08/2009 10:27 PM     
  @VermiciousG  
 
It is semi-private organization. There are private banks that have interests within the reserve system. It has the power to coin and print money. This is a direct violation of the constitution.

The constitution does not allow congress to delegate this to a private organization, this organization is in direct violation of the constitution.

Besides being unconstitutional, even the framers hated the idea of central banks. Jefferson was very adamantly apposed to the creation of a central banking system.

Dont feel bad though. There are lots of other "Unconstitutional" government orgs that have been set up in the 20th century. The DEA, IRS, etc.

The DEA is very easily provable as being unconstitutional as it violates the 10th amendment to the bill of rights. The IRS is more interpretive in nature as to its unconstitutionality.
 
  by: slavefortheman     03/10/2009 02:45 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
But if it's provided for in the constitution is it technically unconstitutional? I'm not saying I think it's a good idea or even legal. I just want to know if it is constitutional strictly speaking.

Bearing in mind that it was constitutional for a freed slave's vote to only be counted at 2/3 of a white mans.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/10/2009 06:52 PM     
  @VermiciousG  
 
Well here is the exact wording:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

It doesnt say they can hand this out to a private institution. Normally the US Mint would perform the actual coinage and printing. However this is a government agency and not a private institution.

Technically it does not say so it could be considered to sway either way depending on how you look at it. However from a strict constitutionalist view, you would probably see the Federal Reserve as unconstitutional.

Now something interesting from the states point of view is the fact that it is illegal for states to print money. Thats not the interesting part. They are within their rights to allow for commerce backed by gold or silver. In other words, if a state government issued a gold backed currency, they could probably legally do this under the current framework.
 
  by: slavefortheman     03/10/2009 07:09 PM     
  This is an update  
 
from http://shortnews.com/...


In November Bloomberg sued the Fed to get them to release the names of the recipients. They still have yet to do that, almost 5 months later...

Why the hell are people not in the streets about this?
 
  by: goran   03/12/2009 03:00 AM     
  Can't find the original article on bloomberg  
 
but here's update 2, from November...
http://www.bloomberg.com/...
 
  by: goran   03/12/2009 03:01 AM     
  Leave Rush Limbaugh Alone  
 
and put your money in gold. I don't know about the rest of you, but my bottom line is still up throughout this recession/depression.
 
  by: DaReapaMan   03/13/2009 02:08 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com