All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2001 - Bill Cooper
58:17
Walker Todd
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
I'm going to play a song.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
You're listening once again to the Hour of the Time.
Make sure you've got pen and paper.
Make sure you're ready to listen closely.
I'm going to go right into it right now.
I want to thank all those of you who have sent your donations for the month of March.
Those of you who have not, please get them in the mail right now.
HOTT, in care of 101.1 FM.
P.O.
Box 940, EAGER, spelled E-A-G-A-R, Arizona, 85925.
That's HOT, H-O-T-T, in care of 101.1 FM.
P.O.
Box 940, EAGER, Arizona, 85925.
on F-M, PO Box 940, Eager, Arizona 85925.
We trust you with reach out to the F-Blocker, and we trust you with reach out to the F-Blocker, and we would like to
thank you for being our luncheon speaker today. I would be very happy to go to your station at that time.
Thank you for allowing me to take out this luncheon and this video. I appreciate it.
I am as surprised as a lot of people to be here today, but I should notice what's happening.
So about 10 days ago, the F-Blockers called me about this.
I do have to offer some disclaimers before I begin.
Uh, as Bob noted, I'm, uh, practicing in training, and so, uh, to stay in good standing with the bar, I have to state my position on taxes.
Uh, they're an unfortunate aspect of government, and my advice to everybody is pay first and complain later.
to be taken as a serious policy player in this town named Washington.
I'll ask whether you agree with that position or not.
That's what you have to do.
You've got to pay first and complain later.
The idea of don't pay and complain has become both amusing for the political system, the courts, and others.
It is an issue of profound intent.
And people will therefore take or complain later than they ought.
So having said that, I'll move on to the main subject of the talk.
I've never written a paper to get really on this issue of what we might call regard to the 1913 as it were, but you can come very close to it, being that you're aligned, at least with the gist of my part.
And a working paper that I wrote in 1994 at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland that I learned later has been
posted widely on the internet.
It's called Working Paper 9405-9405. Working Paper 9405 at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
It's been later published in a few places, and more recently it's been published in a monetary research
publication in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It's been emailed to CMRE at worldnet.atg.net.
And for the paper under the title Constitutional Republic of Corporate States, the Federal Reserve Board, 1931-34.
There's also a later revised and published as an academic paper in the series Post-Drug Access to Economic Library,
United States Research and Financial Services, an annual volume, I think, is number 10.
Either 8 or 10, I forget which, but anyway, the title there was the Federal Reserve Board and the Banking Crisis of the
1930s.
The editor of that series is George Towson.
Okay, so that's sort of where you can find written text.
This will work. Some, if not most, as well as paper today.
I proposed to Bob that the general topic of the approach was follow the curve.
You kind of have to understand what money is or institutionally what it must be, what a central bank is,
what its relationship is to folks' money, institutions, and then finally, where does the Federal Reserve really came
from, what the intentions and framers of the Federal Reserve were,
and how they evolved over the years.
You kind of have to add them all up together.
I think it is wrong to be defined as what it's about.
One way to deal with it and proclaim that you've got it all, you do have to understand,
alas, a lot more to understand this topic than you might seem to guess, but this guy
is reading my hand-picked pamphlet.
First, this question, what is money?
J.P. Morgan, a little banker, was asked that question during the National Military Community
hearings that preceded the Federal Reserve Act in about 1912.
Morgan thought for a moment and said, Mr. Chairman, you asked me what is money.
Gold is money.
Everything else is credit.
Okay.
In the old days, there was, how old, by the way, anyone want to guess how far back people
are recorded in the history and find it in their references and minds?
Well, it's probably about 2500, maybe 3000 B.C. in the Babylonian, Zecharian writings,
right?
It turns out that if you're a chief of ancient texts, as I used to when I was a French scholar,
there's a constitution called the two-thirds law of God, and this is why, or either it's
one of the recordings of the tribal transactions, or it's a recording of the blackness of the
business of money.
I'll give you a reference of the old one I know of that you can see in the design I brought
to Gideon by myself in my room.
It's in Genesis chapter 23, and it says there that after Sarah died, Abraham sought to buy
a such-and-such for Sarah.
He wound up buying a cave in a field that Hebrews—modern Hebrews—called Bathsheba, and he decided he had to buy it from the local Hittite tribe, who owned the territory at that time.
They often excuse him the tomb, but he says, No, if I want to establish unchallengeable property rights
for myself and my descendants, I have to pay for it, openly and unquestioningly, and at
true market value.
If you give it to me, someone later on may come and say, we're taking back the gift.
So, I'm going to buy it.
And the king then made an outrageous price.
He says, okay, I'll charge you 400 shekels of silver.
And he said, how much do I need to take from the land here?
And he said, oh, 40,000 dollars.
I said, you're a trick. Well, it's a very small piece of land, 40,000 bucks, and that's
the equivalent in terms of the money of those days. But they were asking you your hands
to pay. He swore to God and said, okay, I'll pay it. And on the appointed hour, we assembled
all the locals and the Hittites and the Inuits to a foreign assembly hall.
And with everybody watching, Abraham steps up to the balance scale and pays off Silver on the scale, paying off the 400 seconds value.
It's funny, too, that nobody could challenge this property right, because everybody had seen them pay for it.
When did somebody like that do it in front of hundreds of witnesses?
Here's a key phrase.
Verse 16 says this.
I got it at 23.
He made him his own name to the audience, securing us the sons of death.
400 shackles of silver.
Current money with subvergence.
There it is.
Money.
Not just money, but current money.
And subvergence are invoked.
What was that stuff?
And, it was very clear that he was going to be a very good man, but the time of his escape,
or his survival, was translated.
Most literate people would say, well, that's pretty math-ish.
Why do you use that phrase?
It was translated.
But, the current money was very, very ideal.
And, the first part of money, well, in the ancient world, was money, something that the
king or the local noble handed out in the street corners in an enormous amount of money.
And, the king would give it to the people.
And, the people would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
And, the king would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
And, the people would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
And, the king would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
And, the people would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
And, the king would say, well, we're going to give it to you.
It might be something that the people, customarily and by tradition, have, and then the government tries to get it from them.
only with her teacher.
The Bible theory, and what is still wildly popular among modern academic economists that
even today shrines itself instead of the modern uniform commercial code, is what I call the
Here is money.
That is money.
It's whatever the local government says it is.
And to me, as a former conglomerate, what's the purpose of that passage?
As I was describing to you, that's around April now.
It's during about 2000 B.C., maybe.
It's been going a few hundred years, a few hundred, several hundred years, since the time of Aristotle.
Of course, that's reacted in B.C.
And I wrote all the people in the ethics and the chapter on justice.
A short dissertation on money, George, is funny because money essentially arises out
of pharmacism.
A carpenter might exchange shoes for a carpenter to build his house, for example, and they
have to recommend a number of shoes.
You have to pay to get a house.
Over time, accounting systems arise in which you recognize that it would be easier to use
some standard usual measure, or count, as the metric.
So, in the old world, they used cows, they used grain, so many poodles of grain, and
also a bunch of value of silver, and so on.
And, viewing the money from the customary and traditional perspective, that's how it
came about, through evolution away from Martin.
You want to read the modern economic description of the rise of the modern exchange, and its
transformation into a modern money system, reads Alastair Marshall, the turn of the century
Cambridge economist, who was a money-creditor at the Commerce, and the same story appears
in the Pressables of Economics, published in 1920, and their last edition, by the former
report, who sort of collapsed the old line of classical economics, and he was also a
drunken entertainer, a teeter, so indirectly, he had some influence on the modern world.
That's borrowing from, well, I'll read you just before I stop.
Sometime, possibly as far back as, say, in 1,300 B.C., some of the recent civilization
of the city states began to lose points over points cast by the king, who came to the effect
of some violence.
These began to circulate among the people of the U.S.
And, of course, there got no Congress for him again, meaning, I believe, in 1774.
And, they had to use whatever was sent to them by the state as money to pay the bills.
The colonies didn't really have a means of creating silver coins or gold coins for themselves.
that doesn't have much to speak of, as he has in the last chapter of the World of Agents,
published in 1776, that the state's main primary government and British merchants
is to try to extract gold and silver from the colonies when in fact they have none.
And so he used far-open slang.
He used Spanish poems that happened to circulate here.
That's whenever he came our way, would be used as the only part of him
to circulate during the Revolution.
The Continental Army was also writing the circulation of the Spanish-like continental
currency, which is regenerated rapidly around 1779, 1780.
And the great, modern-day continental derived from that is the stationary.
So all of this was written by the founding fathers, who sat around that southern slug of 1787,
and began to debate the question of what kind of money shall the Republic have.
And by the way, it's probably probably $20 in deduction.
Where in the Constitution is the money, power, or clock?
Is it an executive branch power, or is it a congressional power?
The congressional, right?
Congress has the power to regulate the value of a defined money and regulate the value of foreign bullets, right?
It doesn't say the President.
It doesn't say the Treasury Secretary.
So, that was the decision on that narrow question.
And a lot of people have the impression that the Constitution also says, and by the way, nothing but gold and silver shall ever be legal tender in the United States.
Does it say that?
No.
It says no state shall make anything except gold and silver a legal president.
They wanted to show off the state issued paper money, but that's blatant, and they are, well, they're illusionary, aren't they?
What about the U.S.
government, federal government, and paper money?
This issue was debated on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, and the gist of the debate was as follows, even as a surprising result, even for those who we normally think of as apocryphal, are very likely to exchange their opinion.
The debate seems to have run through this with people that we might loosely associate today
with an investment banking crowd that lives in New York, or once we New York,
local real estate promotion and development crowd.
Kind of folks who always want to see asset values rising in nominal terms even
as they're not licensed in real terms.
So he said, you shouldn't ask for a gift of the issuance of paper money.
It's a useful measure in times of distress for the government.
Howard F. Hamilton was probably the leading spokesman for the Navy's mission from that
point of view.
Fort Larry, many of you may have heard, became the first Surgery Secretary.
The rival point of view that Jeffersonia's backers point of view was essentially,
We need chips and paint to pay for money.
We think it belongs to the slaves of Egypt and the warlords of the Apocalypse, among the great evils of the world.
But if there were a war or other national emergency of similar magnitude, we do not want to explicitly tie the hands of Congress.
And so, the issue remains silent in the Constitution.
A fair translation of that from the perspective of a constitutional scholar would be, the Jeffersonians decided that they didn't have the most cramped-out attitude for a vision of paper money.
And so, it's a good thing the executive and the judiciary went forward to prevent the
usage of paper money outside wartime and outside non-national emergencies.
In fact, as time went on, when grief was, in 1798, December, Alexander Hamilton did draft
the Secretary of the Treasury a proposal for the creation of a sort of central bank.
He called it a national bank, the first bank of the United States.
And so, the Federal Overview Congress for its approval.
Hamilton's followers had won the first congressional election in 1788.
He controlled the House by about two-and-a-half margins, and the states voted by state were, in those days, essentially state legislators and appointed senators, and he had a slight majority in the Senate, maybe 7-6 or 8-5.
And so, whatever he wanted, he could get in a manual envelope.
The manual manual failed to walk through Congress and landed where he wanted, and it says, and he doesn't quite know what to do with it.
Then I recall, by the way, what the name was of the presiding officer of half the Constitutional Commission.
Who was the chairman that stood during that summer?
George Washington.
Well, you'll say, I'm here to stay on page 20 of the National Banking Review.
I'm talking about another paragraph of the Court of Constitutional Procedures that mentions, when it is stated in the Constitution that Congress will have the power to charter a national bank or a federal bank, it's not fair.
It wasn't brought up.
Guess what?
And so, in an interesting sort, James Madison, following on a proposed amendment
by Benjamin Franklin one day in August.
James Madison suggested that one of the clauses in Article I, Section 8 be amended
to allow the federal government to charge corporations for usable purposes.
And he had in mind building roads, cutting canals, and so on.
And maybe they created a national university one day.
Others stood up and objected that, and Mr. Madison, you do not understand the mindset,
the way people think in affairs of finance and money.
They will take that corporation charter clause that you just mentioned and they will interpret
it as the authority to create a central bank or a national bank.
And we wrote that.
The House of Representatives agreed.
The Hamiltonian faction confirmed among themselves and decided that it would be better to withdraw
the proposition than to have a recorded vote against it lest at some future date somebody
like me would stand up and say, well, they brought it up and they voted no on it.
So how can you say it's in the Constitution?
Take this book off and that's the end of it.
So anyway, Hamilton is the judge that introduced the National Bank Bill, Bill of Rights, and
Washington's death.
Washington was there.
He knew about this debate that I just described to you.
But he turns to his Secretary of State, Jefferson, the best lawyer in the Cabinet, and says,
you're writing an opinion on this thing.
I don't know quite what to do with it.
And Jefferson writes back a very nice, reading-outline-style opinion saying that the federal government
has no power to charge corporations, especially not a central bank.
It was brought up in Boehme.
Withdrawal has to be voted down.
It's hard to find this within the powers exclusive of the Constitution.
And I remind you, Mr. President, that if we approve this change, we will have crossed
beyond strict construction of the Constitution.
To take a single step beyond the powers narrowly confined for Congress is to open a boundless
field of power.
It's sort of like once you've decided to step outside the bounds of certain legality,
say, what rules bind you then?
Person.
So, anyway, that's the end of Jefferson's Gay Quarantine, this way out.
He said, If, however, you think it's a close call in your mind, then I would urge you to go ahead and support the bill.
Sign the bill.
Because at times, the eduction clause of veto power should not be used or abused by the
executive on anything that was close to the constitutional limits of congressional power.
The executive should go along with what Congress wanted.
In a nutshell, that's what it said at the end.
Hamilton then was asked to write an opinion against Jefferson.
And he wrote a long opinion on the National Bank that was a classic of reasoning of those
who followed his school for about money and banking.
These two opinions, by the way, by Jefferson and Hamilton, were not published at the time.
Remember, they were given to George Washington for his private usage and guidance in deciding whether to sign the National Land Bill.
They remained in Washington's personal papers.
A cousin of Washington named John Marshall was viewing Washington's personal papers at
his desk, with a wish that he write a biography of Washington.
And so, the first official biography of Washington was published in 1807, after Marshall had
already become Chief Justice.
And, in an appendix upon the volume, Marshall summarizes the debate at this time.
Later, in 1819, at a court of case called the Fellowship versus Maryland Supreme Court
opinion, Maryland Supreme Court opinion was able to vote Supreme Court opinion ever, in
my opinion.
He swapped half the impossible.
He swapped for a phrase that Daniel Russer, then a counsel of the bank, produced in these
Supreme Court arguments, which said, robbers, power to tax, and power to destroy, the state
of Maryland can tax the banks of the United States branches in Maryland, so the state
state essentially swapped whatever the federal government wishes to do to the next state
by just taxing it.
We can't have that happening.
Marshall said, no, the rank of the governor, power to tax, and power to destroy, should
never be subject to any kind of taxation, so the state has no right to tax the establishments
of the federal government, areas, and departments.
But, the longer part, I call it, is about the Hamilton versus Jefferson debate.
The first part, I'm going to call it, is about, is the National Bank constitutional?
And Marshall says, or he often does, that we need to consider issues like this long after they occur.
The National Bank Bill was signed by Washington in 1791.
Here it is, 1819.
It's twenty-eight years later.
But I'm going to do it, Marshall said.
clear usurpation of constitutional authority may be challenged even after a delayed walkthrough
of this.
I went out and passed Justice Department fees today, so I'm very grateful.
Anyway, Marshall, having at his possession the book again, The Jeffersonist Hamilton,
summarized Jefferson's arguments and then went on to quote extensively, verbatim, from
Hamilton's opinion without citing it as a source of work.
And it wasn't until about ten years later, around 1828, that these opinions were finally
published, and Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill that was recharted the second time in the
bank of the United States in about 1832.
He vetoed it.
However, whatever John Marshall said, he, Jackson, thought the bank was unconstitutional
and was about to fight the powers of Congress to create better banks.
He never read the veto message on the second bank.
It's a nice little opinion.
The members of Hamiltonians, one of you, always point to it as ranting and raving,
white-populist bellendogs.
It was drafted by Roger Taney, attorney general at the time, who later was appointed to the
Supreme Court.
The Trennan Bank vote died.
The charter was expired in 1836.
Years later, taking what was due of the Treasury's money, it was finally given to the Treasury
as taxes.
It was decided that we should create a sub-treasury, or an independent Treasury system.
The charter used to have branches at the major cities of the United States, more or less
where there are branches of the Federal Reserve today.
And so, if you were someone who had to pay substance to either of the taxes of the Treasury
to the smart debtors, the Treasury grants would make the payment.
How many of you have been down to Federal Hall in New York City on Wall Street and saw
the site from New York where George Washington was first sworn in as president?
Now, the United States is bad news out there.
So, the modern Federal Hall, honestly, was over a hundred years old, but the building was erected as one of the sub-treasury branches.
So, if you've ever read a Federal Law, it's in any sub-treasure.
So, what was the Federal Bank of the United States in 1836?
In 1913.
So, how was it defined in those days?
Well, some said it was wrong, and studies were debated by the Federal Reserve.
My personal opinion is, we didn't do it badly.
And, essentially, after the National Bank, the tool was created during the Civil War.
As a means of financing the North during the Civil War, Treasury Secretary Tom Chase proposed
that President Reagan would post on his treasury exhibit a system in which nationally chartered
banks, not dependent on the states for their powers, would be created.
And these banks would be allowed to circulate their own notes to be used as currency.
As long as those notes were backed in turn by a full deposit of a decent equal amount
of U.S. bonds and the credit for your sub-treasury branches.
Then, the North's role was resumed about thirteen years after the Civil War, and that meant
that those bonds had to be payable in gold.
So, from about 1789-79 onward, under the old National Bank system, the National Bank would
circulate its own notes as currency as long as they were backed by a deposit of gold-paying
bonds at the U.S. Treasury Department.
And that credit was more limited than it is today.
There was no equivalent credit card.
Everybody in the area could not get credit.
But what credit there was was cheaper than it is today.
Accountancy borrowers were 3, 4, 8, 5 percent.
And that's the problem of doing away with modern central bank.
And if you did that, you have to decide how you can spread the economy.
This is where it is hard to get, in those systems.
Now, we have to remember the investment standards and real estate standards I referred to earlier.
How do you think they feel when you say, boy, interest rates probably fall down to 3%, but
it's going to be real hard to get credit?
How do investment bankers and promoters feel about this thing?
They don't like it, because it tends to depress nominal assets.
So, where do we propose propositions come up?
Guessing the main proposition always is.
But, if I'm getting behind these 13 in a nutshell, what happens is there are just too many tax
cuts, too many tax breaks, too many tax cuts, and too many tax breaks, and too many tax breaks.
And so, what happens is, there are too many tax cuts, and too many tax breaks, and too
In 1913, they would like to bid 118.79 onward.
It's a story of unpermitted panic, never ending depression, never enough money available, never enough credit available.
In 1907, there was a financial panic in New York, surprising for the unusual reason of a major bank that faced too many loans to borrowers who were essentially frauds and swindlers.
Traditionally, the Knickerbocker started a company in New York, and a number of the banks got involved and loaned them to the Knickerbocker, but the safety warrant had to organize a rescue effort to save the New York clearing house itself.
The banks of New York, or any other city where there was a clearinghouse association, be
allowed to issue currency for us for six months, backed not by the deposit of bulk aid bonds
and treasury, but instead private citizens' obligations as long as they were not only
in gold, but the means of transforming private under-instrument into officially authorized
currencies.
Thank you.
The next several years there were academic studies, some funded by the purple banking
analysts in New York, some funded by 500 other economic analysts in the West, of standards
of obligation on monetary reform.
This meant that monetary freedom shall be ranked from treatises and so on.
Finally, in 1912-1913, if you can't go ahead, there were four original mainstreams of thought
that stepped in to use the Federal Reserve Act to remember biology on the offensive of
the corporate actions of the northern and the western governments.
You're wrong.
That's what I'd like to say.
This is it.
This is the gospel.
This is the truth, and nothing else matters.
You're wrong.
You see, there are four competing streams, and it's sort of like that fate on the Constitutional Convention floor that I was describing.
How would you parse that?
How would you translate it today?
the issue of the paper money by the central government authorized?
Well, I'm a fan of the business bankers and real estate developers.
I stand up and say, have these been not explicitly prohibited?
And so it is.
The way the Federal Reserve Act came together, and it's far more fair-facted, as we'll often hear,
is representing, say, the foreign banking interests, the European bankers, the D.C. Morgan crowd, the August Stoltman
crowd.
And they hire these scholars, and they hide them away on Jekyll Island, Georgia,
and they come up with a draft of the Federal Reserve Bill.
And they run it to Washington, they crack it down the throat of all the Congressmen,
spread their money around, and everybody signs on and walking down those waters of the Reserve.
There is nothing other than the foreign bankers conspiracy against the United States.
How many of you think that?
I'm not surprised, but you're wrong.
That's one thing of the opposite.
Okay?
Now you've got to think.
We just elected a semi-populist president of the United States, Luther O. Wilson, the first candidate of the Democratic Party in, well, years at that point, 16 years from Washington, D.C., who invented Brian.
And Brian's faction controlled Congress, the Housing, right?
So, you think they're just going to roll over and play dead when they say, well, you're going to have to run Bakersfield.
So, they had their own views.
What did they want?
They wanted an agricultural credit system to be created by the federal government.
They kind of wanted the old populist party of PT92 platforms.
They wanted to provide for deposits bringing in warehouses inspected by the government,
get a receipt, and then have the right to log into the local national banks to send
that receipt.
They said, you must give me both money, national currency, of say 85% of the market value of
this receipt.
That's what the client found.
And they wanted it so much, they could sign on to just about anything that provided them
that commercial funding facility.
Then there was sort of what were called the 1913 version of the shadow committee on banking
and they said that a study that he did electronically had led us to a report on the inflation situation
in the New York fast faxes.
They were in his home state, in a charter class in Virginia, and a representative, a
chairman of the IFO News, chairman of the group, the most important member on how the
banking situation is.
Kirk Lask had an academic expert named Harper Willis at Columbia University who helped him
craft a plan to blast the Warren bill.
Mind you guys, the final self-reserve act of 1913 had more lines of text in it, more subsidies provisions in it from the glass version of the bill than any of the Kentucky key chapters.
So, here's another of those plates in the oven.
Here we are.
What we've lost, what we wanted, the money power broken up and spread out in New York City didn't want to concentrate it in a capital niche.
He didn't trust New York bankers anymore then than he possibly should today.
So, he wanted a system of regional reserve banks to be created.
Eventually, twelve were created.
He did not want a federally appointed board of governors in Washington running the system.
It turned out, in final compromises, Woodrow Wilson wanted that.
That's the next step, if you will, by the way, is what we'll call the traditional, how do you get them out of the beltway mentality, folks.
Now, it's better than anywhere else how to run things, and if you'll just do it our way, either you'll be happy or we'll make certain we never hear any complaints.
Well, that crowd around Wilson, combined on top of Ratsy J. Robb, Ike Nielsen, and this guy is the list of people who are, and as I'm sure everyone else in the room here would argue about, they serve more on the income tax.
That same month that, well, we can't have this Agricultural Lending Institution, this Emergency Lending, 1987-10-H, Volcker's Dream on Deck, Ike Institution.
We can't have this Coinmaker Representative Institution.
We can't have that thing without a strong guiding hand of the federal government in Washington directing a panel
to Congress, the executive judiciary, which Constitution says it has to be Congress.
So how can we get a simple bank appointed by the President that kind of claims for all of these ministries and always,
and always going to be loyal to get in on such claims and doing things?
How can you do that constitutionally?
To create a reverberation, of course.
So by landing claims, the doctrine had arrived in the Supreme Court.
I'm going to read off all the documents, but observe it.
that Congress may delegate one of its constitutional powers to the executive for either a defined
term of years, years, five years, whatever, subject to manual review and reporting to
Congress and subject to the appropriations process for its fair variety of operations.
Well, some structures of the Federal Reserve acted that kind of a constitutional test.
By the way, you've got the raw picture now over a length of the elements, but to make
it work, you need a man whose mind was, shall we say, unburdened by particular commitments
to any particular principle.
You need a man open to compromise, a man willing to take credit for being the intellectual author
of this day, even though there is not a shred of evidence of the ever-evolving old word
to get it through.
Senator Robert O. Edimock, Oklahoma, and that's our governor, the president, is not reserved
for a black woman, they have his statue outside the building.
Some of their banks don't take much of a look except in New York, where they generally like
that, you know, with the highest tolerance of their hope that they can, or have it, move
themselves, whether it's any secret or not.
The biggest PNP church charter class, the reformer, hung in a place of honor down on
the main floor of the Reserve Building, every time a new business was building on the shore.
My challenge to you is, find the charter class for them, or ask the guys if you know where
it was, ask the guys if they can even tell you who he was.
Last time I saw it, the class board member was up there in the corner of a private dining
room.
This movement of class discipline really has occurred within the last fifteen years or
so.
One of the problems, and strictly in the best of both problems, is that the old guys, they
remember the debate, and it was found a purely or sharply debated debate, and the new guys
do things their way, and a certain model is pushed into getting, a certain model is passing
along.
That's kind of what's happened, that the young guys aren't enough, or might be more, or are
supposed to stand for it, and it becomes very easy to do something else.
So, that's, to get into a nutshell about how we got to the modern world.
The 1933 people, now this came out of the prime year, 1913.
It was mostly class, or I'll call it class primarily, but the Vietnamese dream, VN, was
nice.
And what a bad institution it was originally, frankly.
For one thing, the Confederates didn't originally have any tender money to make power.
The answer is no.
They had awful money status only for Federal Reserve notes.
There were four competing currency systems.
Down to 1933, Federal Reserve notes, National Bank notes, ones that I described earlier,
U.S. notes, notes issued by the Treasury itself, and gold and silver coin were seriously taught
years in all of that stuff.
And, in 1933, under the powers of the Emergency Banking Act, which was vested in the term
of the Trading of the Enemy Act of 1917, President Roosevelt essentially suspended private transactions
in gold, suspended the redeemability of U.S. notes in gold or silver.
He was typically told to go file that for the Confederates in the 1960s.
The old coin was withdrawn from circulation.
Only Federal Reserve notes were left out there standing.
And, in a resolution adopted by Congress in June of 1933 confirming this outcome, Congress
just passed a resolution saying, yes, it is our intention that Federal Reserve notes shall
be legal tenders, which is a higher and stricter legal standard than awful money.
And, that meant from that day forward, what you make of is one fact of a Reserve note
is a reasonable total Reserve note that's been held legal tender ever since.
Okay?
As claimed in 1938, President Roosevelt actually said to do this problem, he had to find the
right marks in the places where I've been to.
As claimed in 1930, what's been conceived of as part and parcel of some monstrous, proletarious
scheme, allied to the Income Tax as a necessary component for oppressing the American people?
The answer is no.
And, in fact, at the time, the Fed was explicitly prohibited, thanks to Lassiter's armed action,
the Fed was explicitly prohibited from using U.S.
government obligations as backing for its currency notes.
The Fed was supposed to use either gold and silver, or foreign exchange, or private obligations
that it acquired in the overall market as the backing for Federal Reserve notes.
The battle changed to the first streak.
After 1933, the Fed was allowed to use currency in exchange for treasury obligations that it
held.
Two parties have to collude for a static expansion of the undacked monetary system to work.
The treasury has to issue bonds for other payers, but the Fed can't purchase it.
It's a two-party game.
The Fed can't run it alone.
Neither can the Treasury.
There's a bank.
Both need the other.
He's the other.
And that's not what's getting worse today.
If the Fed wants to expand the money supply, it has to buy more Treasury applications.
That's because the application for applications to the Fed is now half the supply.
It's surplus, all surplus.
It's because of those interstate hustles that the Fed didn't want to let me buy.
If the Treasury applications go away, So, in a nutshell, that's kind of how we got to where we are today.
And so, in a nutshell, that's kind of how we got to where we are today.
I hope I've dispelled some of the myths about how the Feds was created, why it was created,
what the constitutional basis for each of it is.
And, I think, that's a good question.
I think it's a good question.
On this, on that, you're willing to read by some other person's marital self, and say that you've wrongly decided.
And if your successors can look at past resistance effects due to this, not to that, the problem
of public is, you missoccer and look at implied power within the Constitution.
It is the bedrock of modern day government.
So, getting the colorful returns is why I say, let's abolish modern day government.
Maybe that's what the law says too.
But you know what, so what?
We have no deal as long as you say, oh, let me put colorful on the legislative agenda.
and let's just get rid of the fish.
So, I just want to make that explicit to you.
Where is the problem?
I don't know.
So, I hope that clarifies a lot of your questions.
So, I just want to make that explicit to you.
Where is the problem?
I don't know.
So, I hope that clarifies a lot of your questions.
I just do want to emphasize, to be sure, I think for a lot of people, the original language
I just do want to put it this way.
To me, some of my things, or my view of the original language, or the act, I think, is
for the act, I think, is worthy, especially along the curved line.
important, especially along the Carter plan, as a form of as long as you say, oh, that would be a colorful bomb,
As an honor student, I recommend highly 22 or something years.
His biographies are fantastic biographies by his longtime secretary, Christie Smith,
I-S-E-Y, Christie Smith, and Warren B. Smith.
He was a law professor in 1939, two years before Lapsdaw.
A fellow of many great artists in the 1920s, 1970s, and early 2000s, that's why I have a lot of admiration
for him.
He's a true and incredible captain for the class of 2017.
of all the last sessions of the original 1930 Act.
You have a couple of books, opinion of some writers and others, amounting to the substance of the system,
what was intended for our hour last meeting, and then a couple of words from the lawyers in the audience,
and then a couple of words from the audience. And then we'll go to the next session. So, I'm going to read a little bit
of the book. It's called, I think, A Losing Quotient of the Federal Reserve Bank Industry, by Howard Hackley. It's a
basic black book. The last version of the book is a book about the history of the Federal Reserve Bank Industry and
the great success of it.
of the 19 response to that 1907 panic and the desire to create currency backed by a
private credit operation.
So that's it.
I'll turn it over to you.
Thank you.
That's it for tonight, folks.
Now, remember, listen to everyone, read everything, believe absolutely nothing unless you can prove
unless you can prove it in your own research.
Just because he said it tonight, don't take for granted that it's true.
Walker Todd worked for most of his life for the Federal Reserve Bank.
Where do you think his loyalty lies?
That'll give you just one clue as to why you should question some of the things that he says.
I have no doubt that most of what he said is probably true.
But there are some things that you'll find out tomorrow night when we get into the question and answer period and he's sort of pinned to the wall by some pretty knowledgeable people in the audience.
By the way, this whole thing took place February the 17th, 2001.
This year.
Just last month.
February the 17th in Virginia.
Good night, folks.
God bless each and every single one of you.
Good night, Annie Poo and Allison.
I love you.
You're everything I need.
Evan's our buddy in Hollywood that did all this music for us, folks!
All right, Evan.
Evan's our buddy in Hollywood that did all this music for us, folks.
What a talent.
You know what this represents?
They just gave it to us for the exclusive use of the hour of the God.
I'm William Hoover, the most dangerous radio host in America.
dangerous way to a host and a barman.
From now until April 15th, we'll be exposing the criminal unconstitutional
despotic Internal Revenue Service, the money-church and how others came about.
What it means to you.
Don't miss one single night.
The money-church.
I'm just a sinner, I'm just a sinner... I'm just a sinner, I'm just a sinner...
I'm just a sinner, I'm just a sinner...
I'm just a sinner, I'm just a sinner...
You're listening to 101.1 FM Speakers.
All day, most of the time.
You cheated.
▲
Export Selection