Thread: Ron Paul on “Repeal 1913

Ok, I'm gonna tery this again.

First I need to apologise for typing flat tax. Sorry, my bad.

Understanding that the tax and banking issue are intertwined is key. The personal income tax is used to pay the interest on the national debt. But there is never enough money in circulation to pay the interest and the principle. That was reason for establishing the income tax before the privately owned central bank was established. The European Bankers to the likes of Rothschild, Lazard, Schiff, Lehman, Warburg, Goldman-Sachs, Kuhn-Loeb, and Schroder were the big banking interests from Europe who had been wanting to gain control of our monetary system. Remember the words of Mayer Amshel Bauer Rothchild, "Give me control of a nation's monetary system, and I care not who makes it's laws". The income tax was set up so that their profits would be secured. Enter into the picture J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller. They are the American entities associated with these vultures from Europe.

James Madison
"History will record that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance".

The Fed. Res. is no different than the 1st and 2nd Bank of the United States. It is privately held and in reciprocity with the government, making the government i.e. congress indirect banking entities. And our central bank and all the central banks in western civilization operate the same way. They are based on the first one of it's kind. The Bank of England. Which was established in 1694. And for the next 104 years England was embroiled in war or military actions for 56 of those years, and the remaining time was spent preparing for war.

So, ever since the founding of America as a free and independent nation, the moneychangers have been in a running battle for control of our nation by controlling money. Why? If America was left to her devices, the people of Europe it was feared would see the progress America could make, and demand that governments dismantle the monetary empires and wealth of these bankers, and they would lose their control over governments by losing control over the money supply. This is why England for a long time had such oppressive taxation. To pay the demands of the moneychangers for loans the government incurred.

Even Thomas Edison understood this.

"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan".

If we fastforward to 1900-1910, the interests of J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller were wanting a central bank so they could use it to expand their empires. They too have become part of the moneychanger group listed above. But in order to establish a central bank, something was needed to convince the people there was a need for one. You see, from 1879 to 1899, the country did the best it ever had economically. Capital formation (savings) was growing by leaps and bounds. People weren't having to go to the big banking houses to get loans to start or expand a business. They were doing it themselves as the Founding Fathers knew would occur. This isn't good for the big banks. They lose power by not controlling money. So through a series of contrived "crashes" that were orchestrated by the big Wall Street Banks, the people were wooed into thinking they needed a central bank to give the economy stability.

Enter Paul Warburg. An immigrant from Germany. He was a member of the Deutch Bank of Germany and a partner at Kuhn-Loeb & Company. Big banking interests of Europe with ties thruogh marriage, or business dealings with the other European Bankers. He went along with 6 other men in 1910 to Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia, and that is where the plans were drawn up for our Fed. Res. Bank. Conceived in secrecy, because there was great concern from the American People at the time of the "money trust" on Wall Street. The central bank was passed off to the people as a way to break the money trust. So once conceived, originally known as the "Aldrich Bill" for Senator Aldrich who was related to the Rockefellers through marriage, was sent to Congress. It was of course defeated as it was touted as the Wall Street Banker's Plan. So since they couldn't get it passed with the Republicans, they went to the Democrats. Wilson was their man. But he ran on a platform that if the democrats were returned to power, their would be no bank, i.e., based on the Aldrich Bill. But what wasn't disclosed, was that the Fed. Res. Act was just the Aldrich Bill with a new name to conceal it's true identity. So through the democrats the public was deceived into thinking that their central bank was for their benefit. That was reason of the secrecy. If the public knew that the Fed. Res. was still the Wall Street Banking plan, it would never had passed as it did.

On a sidenote, every president who has been assassinated, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, all shared one thing in common. The yknew how banking and money worked, and tried to break the power of the banks. In fact, President Kennedy signed an Executive Order to start recirculating "Treasury Notes" like Lincolns "Greenbacks". 5 months after he signed this order, Dallas 11/22/63 happenned.

So to sum it up, the Fed. Res. was touted as giving stability to the economy. It has done anything but that. Less than 20 years after the institution of the Fed. America was thrust into the worst economic downturn in it's history. It was orchestrated by the Fed and it's owners / controllers, to make the people of America completely beholden to it, and slimy tentacles that it reaches into our lives, cities, counties, and states.

Now to fix our tax system, we must also fix our banking system simultaiously. To fix our borders, bring home our soldiers. If needed, we should construct barriers to make it harder for people to slip across in the "dark of night". Is it 100%, nope nothing is. There will always be people trying to get in illegally. But if the numbers can be reduced, and those already here sent home to their nation of origin, by making it very difficult to gain work or real wealth, then we will see a change for the better.

But the size of governement needs to be reduced. The ammount spent on the military, of that 535 billion, it is said that 500 billion is used to support our bases overseas. Why so many? Are we a nation of liberty or a nation of empire? Yet we close down bses domestically. It really hurt the Denver Metro Area where I lived. Just in the Denver Area, we had Lowery AFB, Buckley ANG, and Fitzsimmons Medical Center. These were very important to Denver's economy. Once they were closed, the economy tanked and what were once nice neighborhoods with good respectful military folks living in them, turned into ghetto or semi ghetto hoods. Why not support our own communities and have our people here to contribute to the economy of America, instaed of supporting another country's economy.

And there many other things that could be cut out like the beaurocracy of the Dept. of Education, and return it to the States, and Communities themselves. Afterall, look at what our government sponsered schools are turning out for our kid's education. And anytime things need to be cut, the kids suffer the loss, not the overbloated beaurocracy.

So there is much that can be trimmed especially the ammount of money sent to other countries under the guise of "Foreign Aid", which is nothing more than international bribery. And especially cut the funding off to the UN. Watch those people kick and scream if that's done. If the rest of the world wants global communism, let the reat of the world live with it's own despotism. Leave us, and the United States of America out of it.

I really recommend this documentary for you, to help understand banking and money history and the dark entities behind it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 936&hl=en#

There are only 2 points I disagree with that the narrator uses. He says "yes we need central banks, no we do not need them in private hands". If we have a central bank like he suggests, then we fall prey to what happenned during the Articles of Confederation. The nation was bankrupted by the War for Independence.

He also says we can still use a fiat currency, but again under the Articles of Confederation, Congress and the states emitted so much fiat currency, and unless it is constrained, will ruin the country. This is why the Framers insisted, and demanded through the Constitution the use of silver and gold. As Jefferson stated "...paper is poverty. It is the ghost of money".

So I can understand your points on the fair tax, but why must it be so high? If government is returned to what it is supposed to do, which will be like pulling eye teeth, we can cut our debt and in a few years do what was only done once before. Pay off the national debt. The last time was when Andrew Jackson was president. I think we're well overdue for that.

And one last note to go back to Madison quote above about deceit and trickery. The biggest one is war. USMC General Smedley Butler said it rather pointedly.

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.â€

Yes, I understand that Hylander, but the FairTax resolves to a large degree the very problem you describe, that being the excessive government debt enabled by the forced mandated and evil income-based tax system we have now.

The FairTax is a voluntary tax, paid by consumers only when or if they elect to purchase new products and services in whatever volume they wish on whatever time table they choose.

Under the FairTax, the government no longer controls the amount or timing of collections and it no longer has the power over the people to extract taxes Americans do not want to pay in any amount in excess of what they want to pay. This increases the risk for people and entities who loan our government money and therefore discourages our government from borrowing.

In addition, under the FairTax, our government spending will be greatly reduced because people who are presently using government programs to augment their income and earnings won't need it and in millions of instances won't even qualify for it.

When you increase the net expendable income of American Workers as the FairTax does by as much as 40% for a family of 4 signed up for the Rebate earning between $50,000 and $60,000 a year, which is another $16,440 in cash on hand every year for this family, then they won't need government assistance and frankly won't even be eligible for it. The same is true for businesses who now have a 41% increase in their net expendable earnings who have more than enough to pay good wages, provide good employee benefits, including health insurance and other benefits, so under the FairTax, both workers and businesses will no longer need to look to DC for their daily bread, because they have their own daily bread they earned and got to keep, so they can sustain themselves.

So not only does the FairTax reduce the attractiveness of loaning money to the federal government for lenders of our government, it also reduces government spending by eliminating the need for government borrowings to begin with.

We collect under the present mandated income-tax system more than enough money to pay the interest on the debt as well as pay down some of the debt in regular times, but only by leaving our people stranded in poverty and destitution. When we divert earned income back to the people who earned it for them to decide how and when to spend it, and only when they spend it on new products and services purchased for non-business purposes do they pay FairTaxes on that portion of their spending that is above the family consumption allowance (because the Rebate that every US citizen and legal resident is entitled to regardless of income exempts their pre-calculated anticipated spending on essentials), they have more than enough of their own money to sustain themselves without help from the government at any level. They won't need MediCaid, they can buy their own insurance or go to work for a company who under the FairTax can afford to offer it. They won't need HUD housing, or food stamps or free school lunch programs etc., etc., etc., because they can afford to pay their own rent, buy their own food and etc., etc., etc.

There will still be that small minority of 65 and Under individuals who through infirmity or disability or from a series of unplanned bad luck events that places people in need either on a temporary basis, or for some on a permanent basis, will still need assistance from time to time, but that's not 62 million Americans as we have today on MediCaid and SCHIP, but that should be no more than 10 million Americans at any one time at most under the FairTax, which means an 80 to 90% reduction in entitlement programs for people under age 65. That's about $400 billion in reduced spending a year for the federal government by just passing the FairTax, letting companies and individuals keep the money they earned, and letting the economy roll. Then when consumers are happy and spend their money, the government gets paid its cut for its role in that generating that happiness.

When we pass the FairTax, the agenda behind the Federal Reserve collapses because as you pointed out, without the mandated revenue from mandated-income taxes, their exploitative plan to make America a Debtor Nation, has no reliable repayment plan under the FairTax. Thus, they will look merrily elsewhere to invest their money such as in direct investments in manufacturing and business operations to rebuild our economy instead of investing in what will be higher-risk wasteful spending schemes of the US government under the FairTax.

www.fairtax.org