Are We Fed Up Yet? Let's Talk About The Not So Federal Reserve
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VFYRaltcc&list=PL5vtMLUWgYehCTEfSmgEzAEC9Dvt9FZmc
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here, and we are going to talk some Federal Reserve.
Now, a little over a week ago, Jerome Powell put out this video that kind of almost went super mega viral in that he was talking about the Trump administration taking grand jury testimony requests and essentially threatening the Federal Reserve with criminal action.
And I saw a bunch of people taking the side of the Federal Reserve.
Now, listen here.
Again, we are no apologist for the Donnie T administration when it does something wrong.
And quite frankly, Jerome Powell is not necessarily lying 100% of the time in this.
I do believe that these subpoenas are politically motivated because the Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, is outside of the purview of all three branches of government, and is what is known as a quasi-government organization that is in fact private.
And we're going to demonstrate all that today.
We're going to show you that.
We're going to show you Alan Greenspan back in the day.
We're going to go through several directors so people can understand how this works.
And then we're going to go to the man, the myth, the legend, the 90-year-old super patriot that is still around, Ron Paul, who has been warning us about the Federal Reserve, their overreaching powers, and this privatized aspect for literally decades.
Literally decades.
In fact, one of the things I wanted to do in this was not just play the same old videos, but find some of the archives from C-SPAN.
I went all the way back to the 80s where Ron Paul was at hearings as a congressman.
I went to Ron Paul's 1988 libertarian presidential campaign speech is coming out that was on C-SPAN.
Audio on that was a bit rough.
But what I did find that we are going to watch are a couple of hearings, one from 2000 and I believe one from 2008.
And the 2001 is an interaction with Ron Paul and Greenspan that is pure gold wrapped in diamonds with silver race car wheels on the bottom.
Okay.
And by the way, we're going to talk about silver too.
One of the reasons we're really talking about this is a lot of the predictions of Ron Paul are now coming into fruition.
Okay.
And silver, we're going to show you, is way over $90 now.
It's hit the $90 marker.
I told everybody when it hit that $50 to $60 range.
I really thought that this wasn't just hype this time and that we were going to see triple digit silver.
I am now more sure than ever we are going to see that.
Now I really believe there is the possibility of perhaps even $200 silver.
These essential changes in the markets, okay, outside of what's happening with the petro dollar, Venezuela, and all that is real.
We should take that into account.
But the precious metal sound money factor that we have not had in this country for well over a century now, ever since that Federal Reserve Act, right?
Any semblance of it is now trying to be moved into not just paper fiat, but into full-on digital fiat that is encompassed with a digital ID and biometric verification.
Total hellscape if that happens.
But I can tell you, that is where I see all of this moving, unfortunately.
So we're going to get deep in the weeds a bit with the language.
We're going to show you some of the responses from Ben Bernanke about the criminal cartel of quote-unquote capitalism.
But we haven't really had true capitalism in this country for a very, very long time, if at all, because when you're talking about government subsidies, that pretty much negates it, especially when the government is going to get involved in any industry on a national security level that has to do with energy, hence the Department of Energy.
And that's one of the reasons that we've seen the majority of technology, unfortunately, plateau on a consumer level for human beings for some time now.
And when that technology is put out there, I mean, think about it, guys.
We're almost on the 20th anniversary of the first iPhone.
It went like that.
Like, even for me, as old as I am, as gray as these are getting, a lot of these clips that we are going to play, it's hard for me to grasp the fact that they are 20 plus years old, or in the case of the 2008 one, almost 20 years old.
But once again, here we are.
So we're going to play Jerome Powell.
We're going to play Alan Greenspan.
We're going to play a whole lot of Ron Paul.
And, you know, we're also going to play some Ben Bernanke at the Council on Foreign Relations for reasons that I will get into, or really Ron Paul will get into very shortly in this broadcast.
So what I need to do is thumbs it up, subscribe, share, ring that bell if you are new to the broadcast.
I can't do it without you.
That's the whole deal.
You know, we're talking about sound money.
Sound money comes from you guys.
$5, $10, $15.
It means the world to me.
I hope 2026 is the year that we end the Fed.
We hear a lot of people talking about tax protests, but I don't believe that we're there.
And unfortunately, I think that they would replace it with something even more demonstrable.
MarigoldResources.com, they broker the sales and purchases of business if you are in that arena.
And my man McGreevy, who runs that, he's big on the FOIA circuit.
I've got some news about that in a bit.
River City Reader, RCReader.com, a true independent media outlet.
Go check them out.
They also have a print publication here in the Quad Cities.
And let's just get right into it.
Before we go to Powell, again, when you look at silver right now, it is exploding.
And precious metals, actual resources that have intrinsic value because they can be used in things.
Hence why our founding fathers only agreed to the issuance of gold and silver coins because of their intrinsic value.
I mean, think about it, folks.
Other than things like shelter and water and food, what for over two centuries?
Okay, we're about to have that 250th anniversary party for two centuries plus, and really before that, for millennia.
What has maintained its value?
Silver and gold.
And now you're seeing other precious metals, copper.
Obviously, there's some other stuff out there when we talk about rare earth minerals, but all these are used in the production of the magic devices, electronics, and beyond.
Okay?
So I just want to quickly shift gears to this man, who, yes, physically, he looks rather ghoulish, never been a fan of Jerome Powell.
This is about a two-minute clip.
Now, there are some truths in here, like I said, but the TDS crowd that just immediately was like, you know, backing the big banks, the biggest bank, Federal Reserve, it's ridiculous.
And I'm not just for auditing the Fed, which we don't hear about.
Remember, again, this administration came in guns ablaze.
They were talking about, oh, well, we should go into Fort Knox, see how much gold's in Fort Knox.
That would be disastrous.
That went right by the wayside.
And I'd like to end, yes, yes, end the Federal Reserve.
Get rid of it altogether.
See you, Sayonara, goodbye.
But hey, if you want to audit it first to show what a criminal organization it is, and the ironic thing is like Powell talks like Trump is acting like a gangster.
That's what all this is.
High-level politics is gangsterism.
And I don't know there's a bigger gangster outlet than the banking cartel system that is intrinsically tied to the Federal Reserve and global markets.
But here it is.
Here's Powell talking.
We'll wrap up what's real and what's not in a moment.
Good evening.
On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June.
That testimony concerned, in part, a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings.
I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy.
No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law.
But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure.
This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings.
It is not about Congress's oversight role.
The Fed, through testimony and other public disclosures, made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project.
Those are pretexts.
The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike.
In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment.
Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats.
I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people.
Thank you.
Now, first and foremost, let's start with the renovation, right?
It's like a ludicrous sum.
I see why it could be an avenue because there probably is some real corruption going on there.
Minutia, minutiae to the real corruption of the Jerome Powells, the Allen Greenspans, the Ben Bernanke's of the world, period.
And look, they're intelligent frontmen that use rhetoric and language to make you think they're here for the little guy, maximum employment.
Do you think that that guy gives a rat's ass about maximum employment?
The truth of the matter is, as we will show with Ron Paul, we have become more and more of a welfare slave state.
And that is on purpose to make people dependent on the government.
Okay.
We have constantly diluted the value of the dollar by what?
Printing more and more and more and more of it with no accountability.
The biggest transfer of that wealth during the COVID-19 44 nightmare.
I mean, give me, you know, I talk about real world in-your-face inflation.
A lot of people have talked about the gas and the eggs.
How about a loaf of bread?
How about a loaf of cheap white bread, but sure, you know, that's just right rife with poison, by the way.
Not trying to say it's great.
It was like 89.90 cents if you went generic, maybe 99, a buck, $1.50, baseline everywhere now, $1.50.
Just like a gallon of water in the big jugs, 88 cents, maybe a dollar, $1.38.
Never going back down.
And so butter was another one.
Butter was another one where it was $2.99.
Now it's $3.99 for four.
Right?
Sometimes $4.99, $5.99.
Forget about if you want to get organic, which everything should be organic.
All right.
So when this guy gets up there and starts talking about what's best for the American people and our standard of living, I think it's total Johnny nonsense.
I think it's total and complete Johnny nonsense.
I do think that Trump's financial people know how to work within the system.
They are unhappy with the current interest rates.
And this is definitely that type of threat.
But when we talk about the Federal Reserve, again, we have to talk about the aspect of it being completely and totally outside of our actual federal government system.
And that is why Trump is taking this avenue.
Here is Alan Greenspan back in the Dizzy explaining that.
I apply it.
I have the ideology because I believe that it is the best way of coming at the world and what type of policy.
What is the proper relationship?
What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and a president of the United States?
Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency.
And that means basically that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take.
So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't frankly matter.
Wall Street's Concerns00:13:18
And I've had.
Yeah, they don't frankly matter.
And that's why when Powell was asked like years ago, I think it was, or yeah, I think it was years ago, whether he would step down if he was asked to by the president of the United States.
He said, no.
He says, no, I don't have to.
No.
And no.
With the big steaming helping pile of no.
Have I mentioned no to you?
Okay.
So now I'm kind of torn.
Where do we go from here?
I think where we go is Alan Greenspan, that very individual, being questioned by Ron Paul.
And again, there's going to be a whole lot of Johnny nonsense when it comes to Alan Greenspan and how he describes finances.
And this is constantly what we do.
We'll get a flavor of that with Bernanke in a moment as well.
But here's Ron Paul.
And by the way, the way he leads with this, it's pure gold.
I love it.
It makes me love Ron Paul even more.
Let's get those thumbs up, everybody.
Subscribe and share.
Ring that bell if you're new.
Here's some 2000.
Okay.
In fact, let me see what the actual date on this one is: February 17th, 2000 at a monetary policy hearing with Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan.
Good morning, Mr. Greenspan.
I understand that you did not take my friendly advice last fall.
I thought maybe you should look for other employment, but I see you kept your job.
I'm pleased that you're back, though, because at least you remember the days of sound money and you have some respect for it.
And even though you do describe it as nostalgia, still you do remember the days of sound money.
So I'm pleased to have you here.
And of course, my concern for your welfare is that you might have to withstand some pummeling this coming year or two when the correction comes because of all the inflation that we have undergone here in the last several years.
But I too, like a former another member of this committee, believe there is some unfairness in the system that some benefit and some suffer.
And of course, his solutions would be a lot different than mine.
But I think a characteristic of paper money, of fiat money, is that some benefit and others lose.
So let's just stop it real quick.
The person he's actually referring to, again, because we watch a lot of these hearings, is Bernie Sanders.
Obviously, a Bernie Sanders 25 years younger than he is currently.
I mean, even if you think about it, I think Paul, you know, Paul's 90 years old now.
He's 65.
Looks great in that for a 65-year-old man.
Spot on on this.
So Bernie Sanders also talked it up about Wall Street, the big banks.
He's been consistent on it.
Bernie's still in government, but again, he's Mr. Social Welfare Program, which again, Ron Paul is on the complete opposite side of that spectrum and for good reason.
And later on, we're going to play this other clip from 2008, not only with him talking about finances, but with John Stossel talking about immigration.
That's going to be the cherry on top of this video.
And a good example of this of how Wall Street benefits.
Certainly, Wall Street is doing very well.
But just the other day, I had one of my shrimpers in my district call me.
He says he's tying up his boat.
His oil prices have more than doubled and he can't afford it.
So for now, he will have to close down shop.
So he suffers more than the person on Wall Street.
So it is an unfair system.
And this is not unusual.
This is a characteristic well known that when you destroy and debase a currency, some people will suffer more than others.
We have concentrated here a lot today on prices.
And you talk a lot about the price of labor, labor costs.
And yet, that is not the inflation according to sound money economics.
The concern of sound money economies.
And for some reason, you hear that audio?
That's not me.
That's part of the damn C-SPAN audio comes in a couple of times.
They can't even let Ron Paul get his message out with some kind of annoying, without some kind of annoying feedback.
Sure, it's just a coinky-dink.
Ms. Taz is for the supply of money.
If you increase the supply of money, you have inflation.
Just because you're able to maintain a price level of a certain level, that because of technology or for whatever, this should not be reassurance because we still can have our malinvestment.
We can still have our excessive debt and borrowing, and it might contribute to even to the margin debt and these various things.
So I think we should concentrate, especially since we're dealing with monetary policy, more on monetary policy and what we're doing with the money.
It was suggested here that maybe you're running a policy that's too tight.
Well, I'd happen to take exception to that because it's been far from tight.
I think that we have had tremendous growth in money.
The last three months of last year might be historic highs for the increase of Federal Reserve credit.
And the last three months.
I mean, think about all that in comparison into how much money we're printing now.
It's like a trillion plus a month.
The Federal Reserve credit was increasing at a rate of 74%.
It is true.
A lot of that has been withdrawn already.
But this credit that was created at that time also influenced M3.
And M3 during that period of time grew significantly, not quite as fast as the credit itself, but M3 was rising at a 17% rate.
Now, since that time, of course, a lot of the credit has been withdrawn, but I have not seen any significant decrease in M3.
And I wanted to just refer to this chart that the Federal Reserve prepared on M3.
And right here, just perfect.
I will say this.
He talks about not hitting the goals, and then in comparison to him, not hitting the goals in his medical practice and how that's life or death.
The irony is in this country, medical malpractice is like the number three cause of death.
And I was thinking about that the other day.
You know, with things that are literally life and death and things that are part of your very, very standard of living, like monetary policy, super cavalier, super corrupt, super in your face.
Can you imagine if you brought your car into a mechanic and a third of the time they screwed it up?
A third of the time.
You know, is it not a third of the time they told you they couldn't do anything or they were just like they literally just screwed it up to the point where your car didn't work anymore?
I mean, it just seems like it's crazy that we allow these things.
But let's hear Ron Paul on their monetary policy and staying within the bounds of that policy.
For the past three years, and it sets the targets.
And for three years, you've never been once in the target range.
You know, if I set my targets and I perform like that as a physician, my patient would die.
I mean, this would be big trouble in medicine, but here it doesn't seem to bother anybody.
And if you extrapolate and looked at the targets set in 1997 and carried that set of targets all the way out, you only missed M3 by $690 billion.
I mean, just a small amount of extra money that came into circulation.
But I think it's harmful.
I know Wall Street likes it, and the economy likes it when the bubble's getting bigger.
But my concern is what's going to happen when this bursts.
And I think it will, unless you can reassure me.
But the one specific question I have is: will M3 shrink?
Is that a goal of yours to shrink M3 or is it only to withdraw some of that credit that you injected for the non-crisis of Y2K?
For the non-crisis of Y2K.
Forgot about that, too, huh?
They hyped that one up pretty big.
Let me suggest to you that the monetary aggregates, as we measure them, are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to integrate into a set of forecasts.
The problem we have is not that money is unimportant, but how we define it.
By definition, all prices are indeed the ratio of an exchange of a good for money.
And what we seek is what that is.
Our problem is we used M1 at one point as the proxy for money, and it turned out to be very difficult as an indicator of any financial state.
I mean, listen to this guy.
We used M1 as the proxy for money.
Not a stupid man, right?
But what has he really answered here about sound money or whether or not they're going to shrink M1, or I'm sorry, M3?
Nothing.
It's too complex, you see.
We then went to M2 and had the similar problem.
We've never done M3 per se because it largely reflects the extent of expansion of the banking industry.
And when, in effect, banks expand, in and of itself, it doesn't tell you terribly much about what the real money is.
So our problem is not that we do not believe in sound money.
We do.
We very much believe that if you have a debased currency, that you will have a debased economy.
And they've constantly, continually allowed for the debasement of that currency in the last 25 years since this hearing.
Full say, show me where it hasn't happened.
Show me where it hasn't happened in every regard.
The difficulty is in defining what part of our liquidity structure is truly money.
We've had trouble ferreting out proxies for that for a number of years, and the standard we employ is whether it gives us a good forward indicator of the direction of finance and the economy.
Regrettably, none of those which we've been able to develop, including MZM, has not done that.
That does not mean that we think that money is irrelevant.
It means that we think our measures of money have been inadequate and irrelevant, inadequate.
I mean, he's letting you know.
He just let you know that did not end up being the case.
He's telling you none of this stuff has been successful.
In a very academic kind of way, masking what he's saying.
He's like, yeah, none of it's worked, but we believe in sound money.
As a consequence of that, we, as I've mentioned previously, have downgraded the use of the monetary aggregates for monetary policy purposes until we are able to find a more stable proxy for what we believe is the underlying money in the economy.
So it's hard to manage something you can't define.
It is not possible to manage something you can't define.
You see how hilarious this is?
I mean, look at him.
Greenspan is literally telling you he can't even define what sound money is.
Okay?
And like Ron Paul is just so bewildered by the hilarity of it, he can't help but laugh in his face.
But Ron Paul knows the game.
He knew then the media would never pick up on this.
He knew then they didn't want a third party that he tried to join.
Ron Paul was a visionary.
And the bottom line is, I wish that he had produced more politicians of his intellect and, quite frankly, his spine as well.
Power Structure Control00:11:14
I mean, think about it.
He's just going to laugh and end it.
Finished.
Yeah.
Thank you very much, Dr. Paul.
Yeah, I think we're done.
I think we're done there.
Don't worry, we're not done with Mr. Paul at all.
Now, I've got this other one of him that we're going to save for the transformation of the financial markets within these hearings.
But first, I want to play this, where Ron Paul, this probably be like a seven, eight-minute clip that I'll stop here and there.
But talking about the banking system, talking about small banks being eaten alive by big banks, which they had been, small banks, credit unions.
They've been eviscerated in this country.
Not many left.
I'm lucky enough that one of my financial institutions is, in fact, a credit union.
It's the one I use the most.
But here we are.
This is in August of 1988.
This is when he has announced his run for the president of the United States under the Libertarian Party.
Well, I think that's a general statement.
I think the big bankers never lose.
But I think a little banker right now is losing a lot because a lot of little bankers are getting closed down and the big banks are gobbling them up.
I don't think David Rockefeller is going to lose.
I don't think he's going to be out selling apples or pushing pencils anytime soon.
But a lot of bankers that are being wiped out at the state level are losing.
But the big banking power structure seems to have control because they're on the inside and they have control of money and they know what policy is going to be down the road.
Can you specify the structure?
You're talking about this power structure.
Well, the power structure basically is made up of a lot of very powerful business and corporate leaders in the country.
And it's in particular, they have formed their organizations.
They've been around for a good while and they don't even hide it anymore.
You know, the Trilaterals Commission, as well as the Council formulation.
No matter what, which president, which party is in power, they will appoint to the major offices members of these two committees.
And they always have control of the Federal Reserve System.
So the Wall Streeters, the big bankers have inside information as far as what is happening and what's going on.
And control over money is pretty significant because if you can control money, you're really controlling one half of every single transaction.
So that is a tremendous amount of power.
But it doesn't look like we're going to have any independence.
They say the Federal Reserve is independent, but that's a bunch of nonsense.
The protection that the founders gave us to try to keep us from this happening never authorized a central bank.
And they were very strict in the writing of the Constitution to limit the power of Congress to only to the minting of gold coins, to allowing only gold and silver to be legal tender, and prohibiting the printing of paper money.
All those things we have failed to follow.
That's why we have a central bank with a paper money system and a lot of inflation, high interest rates, and a very, very shaky economy.
Boom!
Bang!
1988, Ron Paul nailing it.
But don't worry, he continues to nail it.
So I would say that if we would have followed the advice of the founding fathers and allowed this power structure, this group of elitist bankers and industrialists to get control, not only of the banking system and the monetary system, but really our foreign policy and our government.
I wrote a little speech and gave a speech right before I left Congress.
And I said, I don't think the members of Congress really know how little effect they have in controlling things.
Really, it is.
And that means that the Congress itself doesn't have much control.
The people doesn't have much to say.
They don't have much to say about it either.
The control of overall policy is really in the hands of a very small number of people who control all the administrations, all the appointments to cabinets, and certainly all the appointments to the Federal Reserve.
That shows we have a single-party political system in the United States, just maybe split in two a little bit.
It's a single party.
And if you look at the obstacles put in our way as libertarians get on ballots, it's an outrage because we have to spend more than a third of our energies and our monies just to apply to get on state ballots.
And this distracts us.
Some states it's almost impossible to get on.
They say, and I have not personally investigated every law around the world, but they say that we are one of the toughest countries in the world to get a new party system.
And the American people have been conditioned that it's great to have two parties.
We don't want to be like Italy where there's all these choices.
We want to limit our choices.
It's easier that way.
And we don't want to be like the Soviet Union where there's only one party.
Yeah, that's right.
So they have two.
So let's just talk about that.
Think about this.
This isn't 25 years ago now.
Okay.
This is 37 years ago.
Almost 40 years ago.
And even Paul, after this, had to leave the Libertarian Party, had to rejoin the Republican Party.
We're going to show him post-2000 in, I believe, 2008, talking monetary policy yet again.
All right.
And his son, who is one of the very few decent men in politics, is also in the Republican Party.
And he's in a party right now where, you know, he's on the most popular podcast in the world talking about how the Trump administration, the superhero administration, won't prosecute Anthony Fauci.
The DOJ won't.
And, you know, I shouldn't say all of the administration because he says he's working closely with RFK Jr., which to me, again, has been the shining light of that second Trump administration, in my opinion.
But think about this.
It's been almost 40 years since this interview, and we have never been able to establish a true third party in this country of independence.
But if policies never change, what's the difference?
So we do have one party.
Policy's never changed.
You know, if there would have been a difference, maybe under the Republicans, we would have had a closer to a balanced budget, but the deficits were worse with the Republicans.
But foreign policy, the policy of intervention, subsidizing communism and helping rich allies, that always continues, Republicans or Democrats.
It was the same policy, Republican or Democrat, that supported wars like Korea and Vietnam and the CIA operations and the FBI.
All these operations are endorsed by the other two parties.
And for that reason, what do they do?
They get control of the funding as well.
The other two parties get over $100 million handed to them.
You know, not too long ago, we had the two conventions on national television, Republican Democratic Convention.
The American people didn't watch.
They should have.
They paid for it.
They paid $9 million.
We as citizens were forced to pay to run those conventions, $9 million apiece.
And therefore, they get all this exposure, making it, again, very difficult for an option, a third option, to be heard.
It's very hard to get our message out.
But the control is there, whether it's in the political control or the banking control or in government policy control in the administrations.
I want to touch, if I may, just on your comment a moment ago about the departing speech that you left with your colleagues in Congress.
You were there for four terms and I think are aware of the general level of awareness of your colleagues in Congress at that time.
Do they really not know that all of this is going on, that the power structure is there, unseen, but really manipulating the strings?
Most of them don't know.
Most of them are suspicious that the problems are more serious than they would ever admit publicly, but they don't understand the policies.
I've had a lot of members on the banking committee come up and ask me questions.
How does the Federal Reserve System work?
What are special drawing rights?
What is the IMF?
And they'll do that quietly because they haven't really studied it.
Special drawing rights.
I mean, Ron Paul talking about the IMF and special drawing rights back in the 80s.
And unfortunately, most people don't even know what an SDR is.
They don't know that an SDR became completely digital.
You know, we talk about digital money, forget about just fiat money.
I talk about that digital currency system.
Well, they put it into place under the special drawing rights systems of zeros and ones in a bank account from nowhere.
From nowhere.
This is well before.
It's about 20 years before the SDR system had evolved into that type of global corruption.
But once again, that's where we're at.
So most of them are naive, but very much aware that there's some serious problems.
But if you get somebody at the head of a committee that's been around for 30 years or so, I think that they know very much what's happening.
They're very much attuned to what's happening.
And I don't think they get that far.
I don't think they get to head of a committee unless they've more or less been accepted by the power structure.
I did a study or just a quick look a few years ago after reading the Joint Economic Report of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.
And reading it, it looked like it came right out of the Trilateral Commission.
It looked like all the little buzzwords that the Trilateral Commission reports had, all the things that the Trilateral Commission wanted.
So I looked to see if in the memberships of organizations of these congressmen and senators, and sure enough, almost every one of them, or member of Trilateral Commissioner, Bilderberger, a council on foreign relations.
I can remember having a conversation with Barbar Connobal one day.
He's a biggie on the power.
And he was complaining about, you know, there's people always complaining about me belonging to the Trilateral Commission.
He was complaining to me.
And lo and behold, it was Barbara Connobal.
But as soon as he resigned from Congress, where did he end up?
The head of the World Bank.
You know, I left Congress.
I studied the banking system.
I understand something about the money.
They haven't called me yet for one of those appointments.
I've been waiting at the telephone, waiting for them to appoint me.
All right, so let's move on from that.
I mean, you can, I think that goes like 20 plus minutes.
We're actually going to go back to that when he talks about who owns the Federal Reserve System.
But we just mentioned the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations.
He mentioned Bilderberg.
This next clip is out of the Council on Foreign Relations to Ben Bernanke.
By the way, if you do want to donate, need you now, $5, $10, $15.
We also got the PayPal down below.
Crony Capitalism Casino00:03:47
Big donors really could use you.
But let's get back to it.
All right.
And in this clip, we hear about crony capitalism.
You know, and listen, Bernanke's not an idiot when he answers the question.
But once again, this is at the CFR at one of those power structures.
Since the end of the Cold War, we've been watching democratic capitalism gradually morph into casino capitalism and since the Enron scandal into bandit capitalism.
We've been warned time and again about derivatives being a gigantic time bomb that could really blow up the system.
Haven't we in a sense been watching capitalism sowing the seeds of its own destruction?
And look, you could take that question for what it is.
Maybe they're setting up their socialism, their communism.
We've talked about collectivism here.
But when have we ever had really true capitalism?
It's always been a type of fascism via the government and big business colluding with one another.
I wouldn't put it that way.
I think we must.
We can't call it casino capital.
I mean, what else other than the insider information that you and I don't get and that you can't necessarily get at a casino, like at a slot machine, right?
Or at a regular blackjack table where you're not, you know, playing with a bunch of other pros, right?
It is a casino, at least for the, you know, us average citizens out there.
Obviously, I wouldn't put it that way.
I think, though, seriously, that we have to remember, first of all, that capitalism, broadly construed, has been an enormous success.
I mean, it has been in various forms.
It has been the source of all, essentially all of the remarkable growth that we've seen in the world economy in the last 150 years.
The Chinese established their growth path only once they began to adopt market mechanisms.
But notice that's not really capitalism, right?
And notice how he mentioned China.
And it turned around for the Chinese when they started working with Rockefeller and his acolytes, like Kissinger and Brzezinski.
All right.
And they've kept their quote-unquote one-party system, but they've embraced the global markets of what they're calling.
And when I say they, I mean the establishment is calling capitalism when it's really not.
The United States has, through its use of market mechanisms, has reached the level of economic sophistication and power that we have achieved.
So capitalism, to my mind, is still easily the only real alternative for organizing economies if our goal is to improve the standards of living of average people.
Not their goal, their pretend goal.
But think about the market mechanism talk.
And now think about the movement.
Right now, the World Economic Forum is kicking off Davos.
And their terminology recently for the next part of this quote-unquote global capitalism is quote-unquote stakeholder capitalism.
And everybody's a stakeholder in the economy.
It's unfortunately always has been a lot of Johnny nonsense about the consolidation of power, about command and control over markets and regions of the planet.
Federal Reserve's Secret Ownership00:06:15
Okay.
And now we're going to move over to Ron Paul telling you who actually owns the Federal Reserve from that very, very same piece.
Reserve itself for a moment in that I wonder, you know, what percentage of the people know that the Federal Reserve is not really a part of the government, a privately owned corporation, and who owns that, you know, the Federal Reserve.
Do you have to comment on that?
Well, I think very few people understand how it works because the members of Congress weren't really very much aware of it.
But I think it's a little bit worse than just saying it's private.
You know, if it were just private, they'd have to live within the laws of the land abroad and they would have to be a public corporation.
And, you know, if you're a public corporation, you have a right to know what your corporation is doing if you own stock.
And be authentic.
Here it's secret, but where do they get their power?
Is it the power of the marketplace that creates this corporation?
No, they, in addition to being very secretive, have their authorization, their creation from government.
So the government creates them and they create a special thing.
So it's much worse than just being a private corporation.
It is a very secretive, private, government-ordained corporation that has the power to counterfeit money.
So it's very, very unique and much worse than just being private.
It's the secrecy of it and the power that it gets through government legislation that makes it so evil.
Now, you were the ranking Republican on the House Banking Committee for a while.
One of the subcommittees, but not on the entire committee.
And do I understand correctly that members of Congress can't even go to the Fed meetings?
That's right.
I was very interested in the issue, and I was on three subcommittees, two being on coinage and domestic monetary policy subcommittee.
But I could not go to a meeting.
I couldn't get an audit.
I couldn't even check the books.
And they're the ones who create the money.
Yet I felt like I was elected to be responsible to the people when I would be inquisitive and looking into these things.
Their attitude was: when you need to know, or when the people need to know, we'll tell you.
They're in charge, and we're just on the outside looking in, rather than the people being in charge of the government, sending me or somebody else as their congressman to control the bureaucrats.
Let's turn it upside down.
They have control and they allow us to know what we want and what they think we should know.
We're treated like children.
Okay.
And I didn't like being treated like a child when I was a child.
I certainly don't appreciate it as an adult.
Okay.
So now this is literally 20 years later, after that, just almost to the T.
That was filmed in August.
This is July of 2008.
And here, Ron Paul's at a far financial markets regulation with a bunch of the Fed.
And Barney Frank is there.
We'll get into Barney and why he's significant in a moment.
Here we go.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke.
I'm delighted the two of you are here today because I might just get to the bottom of the question that I've been asking for many years: who's in charge of the dollar?
Because sometimes when I ask the Fed, I get referred to the Treasury and vice versa.
But maybe I can get a better answer today.
But I do want to acknowledge the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, for playing a part in bringing these hearings about.
And also, Chairman Frank for having these hearings, because I deeply appreciate it.
But I would like to take a minute to just challenge something he said during his questioning because he made the flat statement that there was no alternative to the Federal Reserve System.
I don't want to take my time to explain the alternative, but maybe later on, Chairman Frank and I can talk and I can explain to them what an alternative might be.
That's not very likely.
That's not very, see, not only does Barney Frank not want to know, okay, Barney Frank is still a congressman after switching sides, switching parties, because, again, the media made it out to be him being a closeted homosexual that got caught having sex with a staffer he was paying.
But in reality, in his apartment in D.C., that staffer was running A callboy ring.
We'll call it that, a callboy ring.
And they actually had ethics committee hearings on Barney Frank.
And Barney Frank threatened to out other quote-unquote closeted members of the government if they came after him.
All documented in my film, Invisible Empire.
So that gentleman up there, the callboy ring guy, go type in.
A skeleton in Barney's closet.
You can read the Time magazine article about it.
Skeleton in Barney's closet.
He doesn't want to talk monetary policy outside of the Federal Reserve with somebody like Ron Paul.
But let's let Ron Paul continue here.
And it's funny, by the way.
It's hilarious.
But anyway, I would like to pursue the theme of the day, and that has to do with systemic risk.
And there's a lot of talk about systemic risk and also taken in the context of market discipline.
But, you know, and we're talking so much about more regulations.
And quite frankly, I think we should have a lot more regulations.
But I think we should have market regulations.
I would like to see a lot more regulations on the government and on the Federal Reserve, because I think it's the ability of the government through regulatory agencies as well as the Federal Reserve to disrupt markets and destroy market discipline.
Government's Economic Messages Confused00:04:18
That is where I think our problem lies.
When Enron failed, immediately said, well, it must have happened because we didn't have enough regulations.
So Congress immediately responded by passing Sarbanes-Oxley.
Hasn't exactly helped our markets.
You know, our markets today, almost every index of the market today is where it was eight to nine years ago.
And that's not taking into consideration inflation, the devaluation of the dollar.
So the markets are in severe trouble.
They are very dysfunctional.
But the real question is, is why are they in such disarray?
And of course, I maintain that they're in disarray because our monetary policy disrupts the markets because we create interest rates below market rates.
Right now, the money is free to the banks.
They can borrow money at 2%.
Real inflation is 10 or 12%.
And we wonder why there's disruptions.
When you have artificially low interest rates, you cause the malinvestment, you cause excessive debt to accumulate, and you cause the bubbles to burst.
And then when they burst, the only thing we can come back for, more regulations and more inflation.
We need lower interest rates.
And no one goes to prison, by the way.
No one goes to jail.
To print more money.
But it is back to this basic fundamental problem that we think that we can compensate for lack of savings by creating money out of thin air.
And it doesn't work.
It's never worked throughout history.
It's not going to work this time.
And we can't bail ourselves out by more regulations and more monetary inflation.
And that's where we are today.
And I think the IMF is correct on this circumstance.
They say we're in worst shape since the Depression.
And yet our government tells us there's not even a recession.
This is utterly amazing.
Ask the American people.
Our government tells us inflation is 4%.
Nobody believes that.
I mean, just look at the cost of energy.
So we have to someday get back to the fundamentals of what is a dollar, where do they come from, and who's in charge of the dollar.
So my question is directed to Secretary Paulson dealing with the dollar, because evidently he is the spokesman and he is the champion of the dollar.
And all public statements are that the dollar is to be strong.
Well, the dollar lost 20% in the last two years.
In the last three years, we've created $4 trillion of new dollars.
But when we go to China, we tell the Chinese we want a weak dollar.
I would like to see if I could get the Secretary of the Treasury to explain this to me.
Do we want a weak dollar, a strong dollar?
And why don't we worry about the value of our dollar?
Congressman, we want a strong dollar.
And what I've said is a strong dollar is in our nation's interest.
I think you and I agree on that.
At least I think we do.
And I've had a clear in the finance and the financial markets, and that has taught me that a strong dollar is our nation's interest.
Now, as I look at what's going on in our economy, and we're going to have some ups and downs.
Every economy does.
We're going through a tough period right now.
But I travel around the world and I don't see a major industrial nation that's got better long-term fundamentals than we do.
All ridiculous rhetoric.
I want, again, now people to think about it.
The last time I can say that the economy was doing quote unquote well or better than it was.
Amnesty And Illegal Immigration00:05:06
All right.
Because now think about when the first time home ownership is for people.
Used to be in your 20s, folks.
Now we're talking 40s, 50s.
Okay.
The last time I actually saw a decent boost in the economy was right after Trump got elected the first time in 2016.
That was real.
You know, there was more money in my paycheck.
I started to see people doing slightly better.
It did not last that long.
And it's not like it was super major, but things seemed reasonable up until the COVID-19 44 thing taking off.
Okay?
So we're going to wrap this one up with one more really important video with Ron Paul on illegal immigration.
And I'm just going to say it.
I think the guy is spot on via this whole clip with John Stossel.
I don't know that there's anything I do not agree with via Ron Paul right here.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been called anti-immigration.
Is that true?
Immigration.
You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?
Not really.
There was an immigration bill that had a fence in it, but there was to attack amnesty.
I don't like amnesty.
So I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence.
I don't think the fence could solve a problem.
I find that rather offensive.
We do.
Get rid of the subsidies.
You subsidize illegal immigration.
You're going to get more of it.
Get rid of welfare.
Get rid of health care for.
Absolutely.
So if someone's illegal and they show up at the hospital and they're injured, the hospital should do what?
Be charitable and have no mandates by the federal government.
Catholics want to take care of their offering to help a lot of these people.
We want to punish them in some of these reform bills.
I'm not for that.
But we wouldn't have so many there if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty.
You promise them amnesty, promise them that no sweat, you can get medical care and free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security.
You're going to get more of it.
But I want a free and healthy, thriving economy.
And I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.
We don't need illegal immigration.
We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.
I want people to...
But a legal line should be more generous.
I do.
I really think we would be.
I think it would be a non-issue.
Today, it's a big issue because people are hurting.
They can't keep up with paying their bills.
When they see people in the line using food stamps, they'll be in emergency rooms.
They'll demand bilingual education in the schools.
And the costs are going up, school taxes go up.
Get rid of all those programs.
I would.
I would.
I think get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution, which means that you do it legally and you have a healthy economy.
And we would have probably a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.
There was a time when we had just workers coming back and forth.
That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.
And you want to get rid of the birthright law that says that an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America, the child is a U.S. citizen.
Yes, I think there's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment.
It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here.
So you say this is good, but that's in there.
Yes, but it's a little bit confusing.
If you step over the border and you're illegal, or you're really under the jurisdiction, there's a question on that, and I want to clarify it.
What about the millions who are here illegally already?
Deport them?
I don't think anybody could find them.
I don't think anybody knows where they are.
I don't think if you had a million-man army, nobody even knows how many there are.
But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, yes, deny them the benefits.
And if they commit a crime, send them home when you know they're there.
Today, in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status.
You know, they might be on the form.
Policemen told me, don't ask that question.
They were told they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal.
And they've been breaking the law.
They're arrested.
But it's politically incorrect to ask a person their immigrant status because that would say, well, if you're broken the law, maybe you ought to go home.
I mean, again, that's 17 years ago.
It's common sense then.
It's common sense now.
It's Ron Paul revolution time.
Folks, if you enjoyed this video, if you like true independent media that does go beyond the left, right, what you're seeing, talkie points, wise, and all the major people, please consider supporting the little guy.
Jeremy's Donation00:00:27
I'm the little guy right here.
There are no paychecks.
I cannot do it without you.
$5, $10, $15, big donors.
Thank you.
Want to give a big ups to Jeremy, who donated via the buy me a coffee.