Is U.S. income tax invalid?

May I respectfully refer you to a historical document (reproduced directly from the original). In light of which, I do not consider my statement onerous.

Benjamin Franklin

A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency (1729)

*** Quote***

There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one's Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and there fore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho' it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.

Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity o/ a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.

To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.

This leads us to the following general Considerations.
First, A great Want of Money in any Trading Country, occasions Interest to be at a very high Rate. And here it may be observed, that it is impossible by any Laws to restrain Men from giving and receiving exhorbitant In terest, where Money is suitably scarce: For he that wants Money will find out Ways to give 10 per cent when he cannot have it for less, altho' the Law forbids to take more than 6 per cent. Now the Interest of Money being high is prejudicial to a Country several Ways: It makes Land bear a low Price, because few Men will lay out their Money in Land, when they can make a much greater Profit by lending it out upon Interest: And much less will Men be inclined to venture their Money at Sea, when they can, without Risque or Hazard, have a great and certain Profit by keeping it at home; thus Trade is discouraged. And if in two Neighbouring Countries the Traders of one, by Reason of a greater Plenty of Money, can borrow it to trade with at a lower Rate than the Traders of the other, they will infallibly have the Advantage, and get the great est Part of that Trade into their own Hands; For he that trades with Money he hath borrowed at 8 or io per cent cannot hold Market with him that borrows his Money at 6 or 4. On the contrary, A plentiful Currency will occasion Interest to be low: And this will be an Inducement to many to lay out their Money in Lands, rather than put it out to Use, by which means Land will begin to rise in Value and bear a better Price: And at the same Time it will tend to enliven Trade exceedingly, because People will find more Profit in employing their Money that Way than in Usury; and many that understand Business very well, but have not a Stock sufficient of their own, will be encouraged to borrow Money; to trade with, when they can have it at a moderate Interest.


Secondly, Want of Money in a Country reduces the Price of that Part of its Produce which is used in Trade: Because Trade being discouraged by it as above, there is a much less Demand for that Produce. And this is another Reason why Land in such a Case will be low, especially where the Staple Commodity of the Country is the immediate Produce of the Land, because that Produce being low, fewer People find an Advantage in Husbandry, or the Improvement of Land. On the contrary, A Plentiful Currency will occasion the Trading Produce to bear a good Price. . .


As we have already experienced how much the Increase of our Currency by what Paper Money has been made, has encouraged our Trade; particularly to instance only in one Article, Shi~Building; it may not be amiss to observe under this Head, what a great Advantage it musl he to us as a Trading Country, that has Workmen and all the Materials proper for that Business within itself, to have Ship~Building as much as possible advanced: For every Ship that is built here for the English Merchants, gains the Province her clear Value in Gold and Silver, which must otherwise have been sent Home for Returns in her Stead; and likewise, every Ship built in and belonging to the Province, not only saves the Province her first Cost, but all the Freight, Wages and Provisions she ever makes or requires as long as she lasts. . . . Now as Trade in general will decline where there is not a plentiful Currency, so Ship~Bwlding must certainly of Consequence decline where Trade is declining.


Thirdly, Want of Money in a Country discourages Lab0uring and Handicrafts Men (which are the chief Strength and Support of a People) from coming to settle in it, and induces many that were settled to leave the Country, and seek Entertainment and Employment in other Places, where they can be better paid. For what can be m9re disheartning to an industrious labouring Man, than this, that after he hath earned his Bread with the Sweat of his Brows, he must spend as much Time, and have near as much Fatigue in getting it, as he had to earn it. And nothing makes more bad Paymasters than a general Scarcity of Money. And here again is a Third Reason for Land's bearing a low Price in such a Country, because Land always increases in Value in Proportion with the Increase of the People settling on it' there being so many more Buyers; and its Value will infallibly be diminished, if the Number of its Inhabitants diminish. On the contrary, A Plentiful Currency will encourage great Numbers of Labouring and Handicrafts Men to come and Settle in the Country, by the same Reason that a Want of it will discourage and `drive them out. Now the more In habitants, the greater Demand for Land (as is said above) upon which it must necssarily rise in Value, and bear a better Price. . . . Now the Value of HouseRent rising, and Interest becoming low, many that in a Scarcity of Money practL~ed Usury, will probably be more inclined to Building; which will likewise sensibly enliven Business in any Place; it being an Advantage not only to Brickmakers, Bricklayers, Masons, Carpenters, Joiners, Glaziers, and several other Trades immediately employed by Building, but likewise to Farmers, Brewers, Bakers, Taylors, Shoemakers, Shopkeepers, and in short to every one that they lay their Money out with.


Fourthly, Want of Money in such a Country as ours, occasions a greater Consumption of English and European Goods, in Proportion to the Number of the People, than there would otherwise be. Because Merchants and Tradeers by whom abundance of Artificers and labouring Men are employed, finding their other Affairs require what Money they can get into their hands, oblige those who work for them to take one half, or perhaps two thirds Goods in Pay. By this Means a greater Quantity of Goods are disposed of, and to a greater Value. . . . As A plentiful Currency will occasion a less Consumption of European Goods, in Proportion to the Number of the People, so it will be a means of making the Balance of our Trade more equal than it now is, if it does not give it in our Favour because our own Produce will be encouraged at the same Time. And it is to be observed, that tho' less Foreign Commodities are consumed in Proportion to the Number of People, yet this will be no Disadvantage to the Merchant, because the Number of People increasing, will occasion an increasing Demand of more Foreign Goods in the Whole.


Thus we have seen some of the many heavy Disadvantages a Country (especially such a Country as ours) must labour under, when it has not a sufficient Stock of running Cash to manage its Trade currently. And we have likewise seen some of the Advantages which accrue from having Money sufficient, or a Plentiful Currency.

The foregoing Paragraphs being well considered, we shall naturally be led to draw the following Condusions with Regard to what Persons will probably be for or against Emitting a large Additional Sum of Paper Bills in this Province.

1. Since Men will always be powerfully influenced in their Opinions and Actions by what appears to be their particular Interest: Therefore all those, who wanting Courage to venture in Trade, now practise Lending Money on Security for exhorbitant Interest, which in a Scarcity of Money will be done notwithstanding the Law, I say all such will probably be against a large Addition to our present Stock of PaperMoney; because a plentiful Currency will lower Interest, and make it common to lend on less Security.

2. All those who are Possessors of large Sums of Money, and are disposed to purchase Land, which is attended with a great and sure Advantage in a growing Country as this is; I say, the Interest of all such Men will encline them to oppose a large Addition to our Money. Because their Wealth is now continually increasing by the large Interest they receive, which will enable them (if they can keep Land from rising) to purchase More some time hence than they can at present; and in the mean time all Trade being discouraged, not only those who borrow of them, but the Common People in general will be impoverished, and consequently obliged to sell More Land for less Money than they will do at present. And yet, after such Men are possessed of as much Land as they can purchase, it will then be their Interest to have Money made Plentiful, because that will immediately make Land rise in Value in their Hands. Now it ought not to be wondered at, if People from the Knowledge of a Man's Interest do sometimes make a true Guess at his Designs; for, Interest, they say, will not Lie.

3. Lawyers, and others concerned in Court Business, will probably many of them be against a plentiful Currency; because People in that Case will have less Occasion to run in Debt, and consequently less Occasion to go to Law and Sue one another for their Debts. Tho' I know some even among these Gentlemen, that regard the Publick Good before their own apparent private Interest.

4. All those who are any way Dependants on such Persons as are above mentioned, whether as holding Offices, as Tenants, or as Debtors, must at least appear to be against a large Addition; because if they do not, they must sensibly feel their present Interest hurt. And besides these, there are, doubtless, many wellmeaning Gentlemen and Others, who, without any immediate private Interest of their own in View, are against making such an Addition, thro' an Opinion they may have of the Honesty and sound Judgment of some of their Friends that oppose it (perhaps for the Ends aforesaid), without having given it any thorough Consideration themselves. And thus it is no Wonder if there is a powerful Party on that Side.

On the other Hand, Those who are Lovers of Trade, and delight to see Manufactures encouraged, will be for having a large Addition to our Currency: For they very well know, that People will have little Heart to advance Money in Trade, when what they can get is scarce sufficient to purchase Necessaries, and supply their Families with Provision. Much less will they lay it out in advancing new Manufactures; nor is it possible new Manufactures Should turn to any Account, where there is not Money to pay the Workmen, who are discouraged by being paid in Goods, because it is a great Disadvantage to them. . . .

And since a Plentiful Currency will be so great a Cause of advancing this Province in Trade and Riches, and increasing the Number of its People; which, tho' it will not sensibly lessen the Inhabitants of Great Britain, will occasion a much greater Vent and Demand for their Commodities here; and allowing that the Crown is the more powerful for its Subjects increasing in Wealth and Number, I cannot think it the Interest of England to oppose' us in making as great a Su1n of Paper Money here, as we, who are the best Judges of our own Necessities, find convenient. And if I were not sensible that the Gentlemen of Trade in England, to whom we have already parted with our Silver and Gold, are misinformed of our Circumstances, and therefore endeavour to have our Currency stinted to what it now is, I should think the Government at Home had some Reasons for discouraging and impoverishing this Province, which we are not acquainted with.

***End ***

Are you saying there was NO other money in the colonies OTHER than specie? Are you saying the colonies issued no currency of their own?

Try,

I love when you quote my uncle. I just cant read through all of that over a computer screen, though I have read it in books.

Quoting Franklin, or taking note of the credit instruments which were used as stop-gaps to remedy the lack of specie, in no way proves the idiotic contention that the Revolution was fought and the Constitution written to, and i quote: "to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency." That was a baseless contention, and you continue to fail to prove the case. But that doesn't surprise me, since it is a false claim, and you therefore cannot provide any proof for it.

Below is that portion of the Declaration of Independence in which the authors catalogue their greivances, saying: "To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Hmmm . . . no mention of the issuance of bank notes, the "printing of money" or false coining in any of that.

Here is the preamble to the United States Constitution, which tells of the reasons for so constituting the government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hmmmm . . . no mention there of an intent to "prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency."

******************************************

Face it TA, you have an obsessional opposition to the income tax, and it leads you into extravagent statements. That's not a problem for me, but i don't intend to ignore stupid remarks about history which you make, when i see them, and that was a pretty damned stupid claim you have made, and you have not provided any evidence to support the claim.

May I enquire if you also post under the pseudonym ?'Parados'; for I am convinced he never read a word anyone wrote.


From that portion of the Declaration of Independence in which the authors catalogue their greivances, saying: "To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:


The Coinage Act or the Mint Act, passed by the United States Congress on April 2, 1792, established the United States Mint and regulated coinage of the United States. The long title of the legislation is an act establishing a mint, and regulating the Coins of the United States. This act established the dollar as the unit of money in the United States, declared it to be lawful tender, and created a decimal system for U.S. currency.

Historical context:

Forms of Money in use in the American Colonies -

The British colonies in North America suffered a chronic shortage of official coins with which to carry out their normal, everyday commercial activities. An indication of the severity of this shortage and of the resultant wide variety of substitutes is given by the fact that during 1775 in North Carolina alone as many as seventeen different forms of money were declared to be legal tender. However, it should be remembered that all these numerous forms of means of payment had a common accounting basis in the pounds, shillings and pence of the imperial system.

The main sources which provided the colonists with their essential money supplies fall into five groups.

Traditional native currencies such as furs and wampum which were essential for frontier trading with the indigenous population but thereafter were widely adopted by the colonists themselves, e.g. in 1637 Massachusetts declared white wampum legal tender for sums up to one shilling, a limit raised substantially in 1643.

The so-called "Country Pay" or "Country Money" such as tobacco, rice, indigo, wheat, maize, etc. - "cash crops" in more than one sense. Like the traditional Indian currencies these were mostly natural commodities. Tobacco was used as money in and around Virginia for nearly 200 years, so lasting about twice as long as the US gold standard.

Unofficial coinages, mostly foreign, and especially Spanish and Portuguese coins. These played an important role in distant as well as local trade. Not all the unofficial coins were foreign. John Hall set up a private mint in Massachusetts in 1652 and his popular "pine-tree" shillings and other coins circulated widely until the mint was forced to close down in 1684.

The scarce but official British coinage.
Paper currency of various kinds, particularly in the colonies' later years.

The first State issue of notes (in north America) was made in 1690 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These notes, or "bills of credit". were issued to pay soldiers returning from an expedition to Quebec. The notes promised eventual redemption in gold or silver and could be used immediately to pay taxes and were accepted as legal tender. The example of Massachusetts was followed by other colonies who thought that by printing money they could avoid the necessity to raise taxes.

Another early form of paper money used in North America was "tobacco notes". These were certificates attesting to the quality and quantity of tobacco deposited in public warehouses. These certificates circulated much more conveniently than the actual leaf and were authorized as legal tender in Virginia in 1727 and regularly accepted as such throughout most of the eighteenth century.

In addition to the State issues, a number of public banks began issuing loans in the form of paper money secured by mortgages on the property of the borrowers. In these early cases the term "bank" meant simply the collection or batch of bills of credit issued for a temporary period. If successful, reissues would lead to a permanent institution or bank in the more modern sense of the term. One of the best examples was the Pennsylvania Land Bank which authorized three series of note issues between 1723 and 1729.

This bank received the enthusiastic support of Benjamin Franklin. His advocacy did not go unrewarded as the Pennsylvania Land Bank awarded Franklin the contract for printing its third issue of notes.

Gradually the British government began to restrict the rights of the colonies to issue paper money. In 1740 a dispute arose involving a "Land Bank or Manufactury Scheme" in Boston, and the following year the British parliament ruled that the bank was illegal in that it transgressed the provisions of the Bubble Act of 1720 (passed after the collapse of the South Sea Bubble - one of the most notorious outbreaks of financial speculation in history).

Restrictions were subsequently tightened because some colonies, including Massachusetts and especially Rhode Island, issued excessive quantities of paper money thus causing inflation. Finally, in 1764 a complete ban on paper money (except when needed for military purposes) was extended to all the colonies.


The American Revolution

When he was in London in 1766 Benjamin Franklin tried in vain to convince Parliament of the need for a general issue of colonial paper money, but to no avail.

The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution.

(Setanta somewhat unkindly, considering my tender sensibilities did tirade, "Did you think you could just make sh*t like that up, and not be challenged?")


Taken from:

Money in North American History -
From Wampum to Electronic Funds Transfer.

A history of money from ancient times to the present day, 3rd ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002. 720 pages. Paperback: ISBN 0 7083 1717 0.


I will await upon your second bearing a letter of apology. I may be guilty of many a felony; such as amending the Constitution, but I draw a line in the sand at claiming words that are not my own.



When the war broke out the monetary brakes were released completely and the revolution was financed overwhelmingly with an expansionary flood of paper money and so the American Congress financed its first war with hyperinflation. By the end of the war the Continentals had fallen to one-thousandth of their nominal value. Yet although the phrase not worth a Continental has subsequently symbolized utter worthlessness, in the perspective of economic history such notes should be counted as invaluable as being the only major practical means then available for financing the successful revolution.

During the Revolution the Bank of Pennsylvania was established (with the support of Thomas Paine) in June 1780 but it was little more than a temporary means of raising funds to pay for the desperate needs of a practically starving army. The Bank of North America was a more permanent institution, granted a charter by Congress (by a narrow margin of votes) in 1781 and beginning its operations in Pennsylvania on 1 January 1782. It was followed after the war by the Bank of New York and the Bank of Massachusetts, which both opened in 1784, and the Bank of Maryland in 1790.

The financial chaos of the aftermath of the revolution and outbreaks of violent conflict between debtors and creditors led to the establishment of the dollar as the new national currency replacing those of individual states.



It may well be true that you terrify the likes of Hannibal Lecter and Resident Evil, but I ask only for freedom from personal taxation as the original constitution prescribed.

You can make whatever hilariously tortured arguments you want, you have not provided even remotely a plausible argument for the claim that the revolution was fought and the constitution written " . . . to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency." That is the most absurd piece of horseshit i've read about history in a month of Sundays. Even if one were foolish enough to admit that, quote: "The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution"--a conceit of an author of a book on money which i do not accept at face value--that is not sufficient authority to claim, as you did, that it was the cause of the Revolution and the the writing of the Constitution.

But the true source of your hysterical claim comes out with this: " . . . but I ask only for freedom from personal taxation as the original constitution prescribed."--which shows just how far afield your obsessional objection to the income tax will lead you. You display a complete lack of a sense of proportion.

"I love when you quote my uncle" - Benjamin Franklin


There is none other whose wisdom holds as true now as when he made them.



"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."

"Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one."

"Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing."



I take comfort that we agree on the FACT that:

?'For imposing taxes on us without our consent'

Was included in that portion of the Declaration of Independence in which the authors catalogue their grievances.




Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay?

No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States - Article III constitutional courts are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.


The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).


Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This principle, in theory, keeps the three branches of the federal government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two branches.


The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining "Party" to mean only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of "Party" that is found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856).


The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.


In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS. There you have it, from one who knows!


In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- the highest Court in the land.


Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as "employees" of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.

In case you didn't realize it... it is after 1939 now..

In 1939, the congress passed a law so all Federal judges pay US, state and local income tax just like any other citizen.

Try,

Perhaps the better explanation of causes of the Revolution can be found in the general taxation of the people with the understanding that the money of the colonies was deemed invalid.

I dont think taxation would have been as big of a problem if the Crown hadnt taken all the colonial money away from the colonists.

I need a source for the text I coloured in red. Do you have one perchance?

Richard, the more I read about the man, the more I want to know. I reproduce an account that took place in Parliament London in 1766. Sections 15 - 22 are particularly relevant.

Note that in S.22 it states, "…the prohibition of making paper money among themselves."

The proposal would therefore have to have been submitted, before he could make that statement.



I. His Examination Before the House of Commons

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)

(1766)

Born in Boston in 1706, died in 1790; settled in Philadelphia in 1729; Postmaster of Philadelphia in 1737; discovered the identity of lightning with electricity in 1753; proposed a "Plan of Union" at Albany in 1754; Colonial Agent for Pennsylvania in England, 1757-62 and 1764-75; Member of the Second Continental Congress in 1775; Member of the Committee which drew up the Declaration of Independence in 1776; Ambassador to France in 1776; helped to negotiate the treaty of peace with France in 1778; helped to negotiate the treaty of peace with England in 1783; President of Pennsylvania 1785-88; Member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.



Q. ARE 1 not the Colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the stamp duty? 1

A. In my opinion there is not gold and silver enough in the Colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year. 2

Q. Do you not know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be laid out in America? 3

A. I know it is appropriated by the Act to the American service; but it will be spent in the conquered Colonies, where the soldiers are; not in the Colonies that pay it. 4

Q. Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country and pay no part of the expense? 5

A. That is not the case. The Colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent many millions. 6

Q. Were you not reimbursed by Parliament? 7

A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about £500,000, and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed £60,000. 8

Q. Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty if it was moderated? 9

A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. 10

Q. What was the temper of America toward Great Britain before the year 1763? 11

A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of the Crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several old provinces they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons, or armies, to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper; they were led by a thread. They had not only a respect but an affection for Great Britain; for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an Old England-man was of itself a character of some respect, and gave a kind of rank among us. 12

Q. And what is their temper now? 13

A. Oh, very much altered! 14

Q. Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for America questioned till lately? 15

A. The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce. 16

Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the Parliament of Great Britain? 17

A. They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it, that the Parliament, on application, would always give redress. They remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought into Parliament with a clause to make royal instructions laws in the Colonies which the House of Commons would not pass, and it was thrown out. 18

Q. And have they not still the same respect for Parliament? 19

A. No; it is greatly lessened. 20

Q. To what causes is that owing? 21

A. To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. 22

Q. Do you not think they would submit to the Stamp Act if it was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some particulars of small moment? 23

A. No; they will never submit to it. 24

Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763 that the Parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there? 25

A. I never heard an objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there. 26

Q. On what do you found your opinion that the people in America made any such distinction? 27

A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not represented. But the payment of duties laid by an act of Parliament as regulations of commerce was never disputed. 28

Q. But can you name any act of assembly or public act of any of your governments that made such distinction? 29

A. I do not know that there was any. I think there was never an occasion to make any such act till now that you have attempted to tax us; that has occasioned resolutions of assembly declaring the distinction, in which I think every assembly on the continent and every member in every assembly have been unanimous. 30

Q. You say the Colonies have always submitted to external taxes, and object to the right of Parliament only in laying internal taxes; now can you show that there is any kind of difference between the two taxes to the Colony on which they may be laid? 31

A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first cost and other charges on the commodity, and, when it is offered for sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it. 32

Q. But supposing the external tax or duty to be laid on the necessaries of life imported into your Colony; will not that be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax? 33

A. I do not know a single article imported into the northern Colonies but what they can either do without or make themselves. 34

Q. Do you not think cloth from England absolutely necessary to them? 35

A. No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good management, they may very well supply themselves with all they want. 36

Q. Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture among them; and must they not, in the meanwhile, suffer greatly? 37

A. I think not. They have made a surprising progress already. And I am of the opinion that before their old clothes are worn out they will have new ones of their own making. 38

Q. Can they possibly find wool enough in North America? 39

A. They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered into general combinations to eat no more lamb, and very few lambs were killed last year. This course persisted in will soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And the establishment of great manufactories, like those in the clothing towns here, in not necessary as it is where the business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The people will all spin and work for themselves in their own houses. 40

Q. Considering the resolutions of Parliament, as to the right; do you think if the Stamp Act is repealed that the North Americans will be satisfied? 41

A. I believe they will. 42

Q. Why do you think so? 43

A. I think the resolutions of right will give them very little concern if they are never attempted to be carried into practise. The Colonies will probably consider themselves in the same situation in that respect with Ireland; they know you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it in the Colonies any more than in Ireland, unless on some very extraordinary occasion. 44

Q. But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? Is not the Parliament? 45

A. Tho the Parliament may judge of the occasion, the people will think it can never exercise such right till representatives from the Colonies are admitted into Parliament; and that, whenever the occasion arises, representatives will be ordered. 46

Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution? 47

A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose. 48

Q. Why may it not? 49

A. Suppose a military force sent into America: they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They can not force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may, indeed, make one. 50

Q. If the Act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences? 51


A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and affection. 52

Q. How can the commerce be affected? 53

A. You will find that if the Act is not repealed they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time. 54

Q. Is it in their power to do without them? 55

A. I think they may very well do without them. 56

Q. Is it to their interest not to take them? 57

A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, etc., with a little industry, they can make at home; the second they can do without till they are able to provide them among themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and consumed because the fashion in a respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mourning, and many thousand pounds' worth are sent back as unsalable. 58

Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to? 59

A. Their opinion is that when aids to the Crown are wanted they are to be asked of the several assemblies according to the old-established usage, who will, as they always have done, grant them freely, and that their money ought not to be given away without their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the Crown is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust that a body of men in which they have no representatives should make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own but theirs, and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the security of all their other rights. 60

Q. Supposing the Stamp Act continued and enforced, do you imagine that ill humor will induce the Americans to give as much for worse manufactures of their own, and use them, preferable to better of ours? 61

A. Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another?-their resentment as their pride. 62

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the Americans think they could oblige the Parliament to repeal every external tax-law now in force? 63

A. It is hard to answer questions of what people at such a distance will think. 64

Q. But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of repealing the Act? 65

A. I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it that while the same inexpediency subsists you will never attempt to make such another. 66

Q. What do you mean by its inexpediency? 67

A. I mean its inexpediency on several accounts: the poverty and inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent it has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it. 68

Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its right to lay taxes by any act laying a small tax, contrary to their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax? 69

A. The proceedings of the people in America have been considered too much together. The proceedings of the assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished as having no connection with each other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have taken no measures for opposition by force, they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riots, they think, ought to be punished; they would punish them themselves if they could. Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate; but as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by the legislature here on the people there, while they have no representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be submitted to; they will oppose it to the last; they do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the Crown. They have not only granted equal to their abilities, but during all the last war they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country (you yourselves being judges) to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise from the secretary of state that it should be recommended to Parliament to make them compensation. It was accordingly recommended to Parliament in the most honorable manner for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in papers and pamphlets and speeches,… as ungrateful and unreasonable and unjust; in having put this nation to immense expense for their defense, and refusing to bear any part of that expense. The Colonies raised, paid, and clothed near twenty-five thousand men during the last war?-a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged for many years to come for discharging that debt. 70

Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it? 71

A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British Empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be looked on here as foreigners. but they do not consider themselves as such. They are zealous for the honor and prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used will always be ready to support it as far as their little power goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the expedition against Cartagena, and they sent three thousand men to join your army. It is true Cartagena is in America, but as remote from the northern Colonies as if it had been in Europe. They make no distinction of wars as to their duty of assisting in them. I know the last war is commonly spoken of here as entered into for the defense or for the sake of the people in America. I think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the Crown indeed laid claim, but which were not claimed by any British Colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we had, therefore, no particular interest or concern in that dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they took a fort which a company of your merchants and their factors and correspondents had erected there to secure that trade. Braddock was sent with an army to retake that fort (which was looked on here as another encroachment on the kings territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat that the Colonies were attacked. They were before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the troops were not, therefore, sent for their defense. The trade with the Indians, tho carried on in America, is not an American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers and planters; scarce anything that they raise or produce is an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures, for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers; therefore, the war, as it commenced for the defense of territories of the Crown (the property of no American) and for the defense of a trade purely British, was really a British war?-and yet the people of America made no scruple of contributing their utmost toward carrying it on, and bringing it to a happy conclusion. 72

Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the subject there to grant to the Crown? 73

A. I certainly think so; they have always done it. 74

Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights? And do they know that, by that Statute, money is not to be raised on the subject but by consent of Parliament? 75

A. They are very well acquainted with it. 76

Q. How, then, can they think they have a right to levy money for the Crown or for any other than local purposes? 77

A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the Crown but by consent of Parliament. The Colonies are not supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to be raised for the Crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the Colonies, the consent is given in the Parliament of Ireland or in the assemblies of the Colonies. They think the Parliament of Great Britain can not properly give that consent till it has representatives from America, for the Petition of Right expressly says it is to be by common consent in Parliament, and the people of America have no representatives in Parliament to make a part of that common consent. 78

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the Crown should make a requisition to the Colonies for a sum of money, would they grant it? 79

A. I believe they would. 80

Q. Why do you think so? 81

A. I can speak for the Colony I live in. I had it in instruction from the Assembly to assure the ministry that as they always had done, so they should always think it their duty to grant such aids to the Crown as were suitable to their circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for that purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the honor of communicating this instruction to that honorable gentleman then minister. 82

Q. Would they do this for a British concern, as suppose a war in some part of Europe, that did not affect them? 83

A. Yes; for anything that concerned the general interest. They consider themselves as part of the whole. 84

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the assemblies of America to acknowledge the rights of Parliament to tax them, and would they erase their resolutions? 85

A. No, never! 86

Q. Are there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions? 87

A. None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by force of arms. 88

Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them? 89

A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their opinions. 90

Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans? 91

A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain. 92

Q. What is now their pride? 93

A. To wear their old clothes over again till they can make new ones. 94



Note 1. First published in London in 1766 as "The Examination of Doctor Franklin." Owing to the secrecy of the session of Parliament no clue was given in the pamphlet as to the place where the examination had been held, nor as to where or by whom the pamphlet was printed. J. Almon, who caused it to be printed, feared prosecution, but none having been begun, he next year printed the examination as having taken place "before honorable assembly relative to the repeal of the American Stamp Act in 1776."

A still later edition described the examination as having taken place "before an august assembly." The pamphlet was reprinted in 1766 in several American cities, including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and New London. In Pennsylvania it was said that the demand for it "from all parts of the province was beyond conception."

It has been often stated that many of the questions propounded to Franklin had already been skilfully arranged for between Franklin and the enemies of the Stamp Act. But John T. Morse, one of Franklin's biographers, says: "It does not appear that such prearrangements went further than that certain friendly interrogators had discussed the topics with him, so as to be familiar with his views.

Every lawyer does this with his witnesses. Nor can it be supposed that the admirable replies which he made to the enemies of America were otherwise than strictly impromptu." Burke likened the proceedings to "an examination of a master, by a parcel of schoolboys." Franklin afterward said that the friends of the repeal "were ready to hug me for the assistance that I afforded them." Among those that asked questions were Grenville, Townshend, North, Thurlow, and Burke. The examination closed on February 15, 1766.

While the direct impact of Franklin's testimony can not be measured with certainty, the Act was indeed repealed a month later.

I suppose I should have been more accurate in my question..

Ive read that which you posted...

What I wish to find a source for is THIs

LINK 1

and especially this quote:

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote it clearly:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War."

This quote is cited as being in Franklin's autobiography.. Yet It is not in Franklin's original.... It may be included in a subsequent edition that was made in the 1800s, but I have not been able to find it anywhere.

The books that cite Congressman Binderup's radio address cite no written reference.. and I have not been able to get any recordings of Binderup's
weekly radio program where he discuess such things at great length.

My research into this has been stopped as far as the supposed reference to it in "Franklins Journal" which at some time during the 1940s it was stolen along with "General Patton's Diary" from the Library of Congress.

While there is corraboratory evidence such as the quotes you cited, and from things such as Declarations of the Stamp Act Congress, I really would like to see this quote specifically stated by Franklin.

I am stuck.

Richard, I note the preceding paragraphs in your link confirm my previous quote:

They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:


"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."


The Bankers Impose Poverty

Mayer Anselm Rothschild, the great European Banker, once said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."


The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has never since brought so many curses to the American people.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution - and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books.

The financiers always manage to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.


"After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act."


From: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h256.html

In the mid-1700s the American Colonies were prospering, in part because they were issuing their own money called "Colonial Scrip," which was strictly regulated and did not require the payment of any interest. When the bankers in Great Britain heard this, they turned to the British Parliament, which passed a law prohibiting the Colonial Scrip, forcing the colonists to accept the "debt" or "fiat" money* issued by the Bank of England. Contrary to what history teaches, the American Revolution was not ignited by a tax on tea. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was because "the conditions [became] so reversed that the era of prosperity ended." He said:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War."

This is followed by:

The views of Franklin were corroborated by such luminaries as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, such as the English historian, John Twells.

Twells spoke of the Colonial scrip in most favorable terms, as to how those colonies flourished with interest-free money.

John Twells asserted: "In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its rights."

Speaking of America, Edmund Burke wrote: "Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people."

Peter Cooper wrote: "After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act."

Therefore it can be seen that the primary cause of revolt against the mother country, was England's disastrous and ruinous financial policy, which was imposed onto the American people, by the Bank of England, a Rothschild bastion.

The Federal Reserve is also a subsidiary of the Rothschilds, as it is 53% Rothschild-owned.

It was Thomas Jefferson who declared in 1812, the wish that the influence of these bankers would be nullified, when he stated: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Andrew Jackson later said:"If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."


Today, we are under the same threat our Founding Fathers faced, for we have fallen under the regime of the central bankers, and their central bank--the Federal Reserve. We are forced to use their interest-bearing scrip, rather than our own interest-free currency, backed by the good faith--and gold--of the United States government.

This pattern of financial enslavement, ensures everlasting bondage to the central bank, as the public loses purchasing power, with the ultimate result being corporate consolidation over a free people. In short; it has taken two centuries to achieve, but the central bankers have finally consolidated their hold over the destiny of the United States of America.

It was always the plan of the Rothschild Bank of England, to destroy the United States of America, and this plan was put into print in the year 1865, when the Rothschild-owned media stated in reference to President Lincoln's printing of greenbacks to finance the Civil War:

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -

Hazard Circular - London Times 1865


England possessed the fairest portion of the earth in the American Colonies but lost them all because of the greed of the moneylenders. The early colonists were Protestant Christians who hated usury and money lending. They were mostly poor and brought little ready money with them from Europe. There were no gold or silver mines so each Colony issued non interest bearing paper notes. The blessing of God and their hard work soon enabled them to overtake the mother country in industry, commerce and wealth.

The greedy moneylenders of the Bank of England soon cast covetous eyes on the Colonies. Their first attempt to destroy the Americans with usury was made in 1765. It was called the Stamp Act. Payment of various taxes were required in specie or coin. Since they had no English coins to pay the tax that meant that they would have to borrow at usury from the Bank. Soon they too would be reduced to penury, pauperism, and destitution like their cousins in England.

Benjamin Franklin said that the American war for Independence was fought over money and currency (like every war) and the right of the Colonies to issue their own usury free currency apart from the Bank of England:



The government has been occupied by the central bank, ever since the day the Federal Reserve System ordered President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 5, 1933, to issue Presidential Order 6102, which required all Americans to deliver all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to their local Federal Reserve Bank on or before April 28, 1933.
Up until this time; gold had remained fairly stable in value for the previous 100 years, increasing only from $18.93 an ounce to $20.69 and ounce.

The penalties for violating this order were a $10,000.00 fine and a ten year prison sentence. This gold was then offered by the Fed owners to any foreign, non-U.S. citizen, at $35.00 per ounce.

All loans to the Fed were paid in real money, backed by gold. Our government became insolvent, and could no longer retire its debt. This necessitated a bankruptcy filing under chapter 11.

Under the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933; President Franklin Roosevelt dissolved the United States Federal Government, by declaring that entity bankrupt.

Congress enacted HJR 192, on June 5, 1933, which made all debts, public or private, no longer collectable in gold. All debts public or private were to be mad payable in Fed-created fiat currency, manufactured out of thin air. This new currency of the central bankers, would now be legal tender in the U.S. for all debts public and private.

Since this infamy was accomplished, every U.S. citizen has become an asset of the central bankers, expected to pay the future debt of usury by taxation, without representation.

Thus, every American citizen is in bondage from birth, and for all practical purposes the chattel for life, of the creditors who own the Federal Reserve.

Since the devaluation of our money supply, the United States Constitution has been continuously eroded, due to the fact that our nation is now owned "lock, stock and barrel," by a private corporation of international bankers, known as the "Federal Reserve."

I wrote to the website to see if they had a written source.. I am doubtful that they will have one, but perhaps I will be proven wrong.

I would be happy with a written source from peter cooper as well.. But havent found one either.. though I really havent tried as hard for his as I have for the good doctor's.

I appreciate your effort though.

Don't try this at home!

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The Federal Reserve's latest move to make credit markets more liquid could deepen problems in the banking system and actually cause the markets to be even more illiquid.

Wednesday, the Fed, along with other central banks, announced a plan that is designed to enable banks to borrow money directly from the Fed at below-market rates. This will allow a wider range of banks to access Fed credit, and simultaneously allow them to submit a broader range of collateral to the Fed when taking out those loans.

Why do this now? The Fed explained in a release today: "This facility could help promote the efficient dissemination of liquidity when the unsecured interbank markets are under stress." In layman's terms this means that rates on loans between banks - measured by something called the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor - are too high for the Fed's tastes, so it is now prepared to itself lend to banks at much lower rates.

Before this move, banks could borrow directly from the Fed through the so-called discount window, at 4.75 percent. The key Federal funds rate is lower, at 4.25%, but that is open to a narrower range of financial institutions and accepts a narrower range of collateral than the discount window. The new program - called the Term Auction Facility (TAF) - will auction funds to banks at rates very close to the lower Fed funds rate. The first TAF auction, for $20 billion, is scheduled to begin on Dec. 17.


What could go wrong with such an approach? Surely, it makes sense for banks to be lending to each other at lower rates, since that can spark more lending across the whole financial system. But Libor is a market rate, ultimately reflecting banks' views on each other's creditworthiness. Indeed, at 5.06% before news of the TAF was released by the Fed, Libor was considerably higher than the Fed funds rate, reflecting banks' caution about each other. But maybe the widened spread between Libor and the Fed funds rate is an inescapable product of the times. Given the credit problems U.S. banks are facing, they are naturally wary of each other. Maybe the Fed thinks banks are being overcautious, so the TAF is its way of bypassing what it sees as unwarranted skittishness.

But it makes more sense to believe the banks' view of each other than the Fed's. Banks do business with banks each day, so they're far more likely to have a good handle on each other's balance sheet problems. Moreover, as theoretically profit-making entities, private banks have to carefully assess the creditworthiness of the borrowers, which means they have far more incentive to do their homework than the Federal Reserve.

The potentially dangerous aspect of the TAF is that it will allow banks with problems to borrow their way out of trouble, rather than by taking measures like issuing large amounts of stock to bolster their balance sheets. Struggling banks are struggling chiefly because they were mismanaged and wrote too many risky loans when credit was cheap. The TAF potentially gives mismanaged banks even more cheap credit, which will delay a much-needed restructuring of the banking sector. Nervousness about banks could then deepen, leading to even fewer loans being made.

The results were that Stocks took a big jump at the open but gave up most of their gains over the course of the day, as the latest developments from the credit crisis stayed in the spotlight.

That is scary; they're showing their desperation! They are trying to prop up our economy by artificial means; cheaper money. That's a prescription for disaster! They should be tightening money; people must learn to live within their means, not their future earnings.

Unfortunately, our government is no help.

We have one chance left - Ron Paul.

If he doesnt get in then I think Im going to start my own bank.

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's coordinated response to the global credit crisis is aimed more at easing strains in financial markets than at averting an economic slump.

The Fed, along with central banks in Europe, pledged yesterday to offer as much as $64 billion to financial institutions.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index finished 0.6 percent higher, at 1,486.59 in New York, after climbing as much as 2.3 percent earlier in the day. The index slumped 2.5 percent a day earlier after the Fed's quarter-point rate cut disappointed investors.

European interest rates suggest yesterday's action has yet to encourage banks to lend to each other. The cost of three- month loans in euros held at 4.95 percent today, the highest since December 2000, according to figures compiled by the European Banking Federation. Borrowing rates for dollars and pounds were little changed, the British Bankers Association reported in London today.

U.S. central bankers also will make as much as $20 billion available to the European Central Bank and $4 billion to the Swiss National Bank to ease demand for dollars among banks in Europe.

Fed officials discussed setting up auctions of so-called term funds in September as credit markets deteriorated. After the Sept. 18 half-point rate cut, bank funding costs receded and policy makers shelved the idea.

Many analysts were more sanguine than the market about the Fed's latest move, but emphasized the increasingly big challenge the Fed still has in making market rates respond effectively to its moves.

"The Fed is feeling its way in the dark here," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist of High Frequency Economics, a Valhalla, N.Y.-based research firm. "Current conditions are unprecedented in modern times.



CI writes, "…Unfortunately, our government is no help."

This is because:


(TAKEN FROM THE Frequently Asked Questions;
Federal Reserve Board)

"Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."

"…As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government."


Nearly 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"If the American people ever allowed the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."


I quoted above, It was always the plan of the Rothschild Bank of England, to destroy the United States of America, and this plan was put into print in the year 1865, when the Rothschild-owned media stated in reference to President Lincoln's printing of greenbacks to finance the Civil War:

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -

Hazard Circular - London Times 1865


The Federal Reserve is a subsidiary of the Rothschilds; as it is 53% Rothschild-owned.

As Mayer Anselm Rothschild, the great European Banker, once said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."


RIP Uncle Sam.

Chasm widens between rich and poor in U.S. new report by the Congressional Budget Office show.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the 3 million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005, the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.

The Congressional Budget Office report made no attempt to explain the increases in income in its annual report on effective federal tax rates paid by people at different income levels.

On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.

The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, but only slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes because of the tax rate cuts. The top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, up from 22.9 percent in 2003, while the share paid by the middle fifth of taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 10 percent in 2003.

The share of income that the top 1 percent paid in income taxes and all federal taxes fell. The total tax rate dropped 1.8 percentage points, to 31.2 percent, from 2003 to 2005 while the average income tax rate for the top 1 percent declined one percentage point, to 19.4 percent, largely because of the cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.


Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan told George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" (today) that he believes there is a 50 percent chance the United States is heading for a recession.

Meanwhile the FED after committing 40 Billion:

Dow 13,339.85 -178.11 (-1.32%)
Nasdaq 2,635.74 -32.75 (-1.23%)
S&P 500 1,467.95 -20.46 (-1.37%)

You could not make this up!!!