Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (28.56)

An Open Letter to our Founding Fathers

Recs

38

April 01, 2009 – Comments (16)

This one needs no introduction. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2009/04/01/an-open-letter-to-our-founding-fathers.aspx

The very existence of the Federal Reserve is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, and represents the greatest threat to our nation's solvency. Short of abolishing the Federal Reserve, the government will fail to impress me with each and every reactive intervention they pursue to maintain the present status quo. In the light of uncommon wisdom, offered to us from within the well of our own nation's proud heritage, we see the fundamental risks posed by the abrogation of authority to a pnzi scheme called the "Federal Reserve" and the mirage of presumed value that is the fiat American dollar.

For the full effect, I highly recommend that Fools follow the links included within the article.

As always, please come back here after reading and share your thoughts!

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 01, 2009 at 5:03 PM, whereaminow (77.51) wrote:

Amen!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On April 01, 2009 at 5:09 PM, whereaminow (77.51) wrote:

This is one part of a 5 part series on Conquering the Spirit of Debt. Watch the whole thing on You Tube.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On April 01, 2009 at 5:10 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

Report this comment
#4) On April 01, 2009 at 5:36 PM, tfirst (66.36) wrote:

I'm not sure if this topic is appropriate for this investing site. After all, the wealthier members of this site benefit directly and substantially from these same crooks that run the world  financial system.

The newer members just beginning to invest, may be turned off by these revelations, and may soon discover that their best investment just might well be, torches and pitchforks.

Report this comment
#5) On April 01, 2009 at 5:42 PM, ayekappy (< 20) wrote:

Andrew Jackson got rid of the first Federal Reserve because he was a man of the people.  Odd that he also had the most assassination attempts against him that came really close, but he was just one lucky mofo.

Report this comment
#6) On April 01, 2009 at 5:44 PM, ayekappy (< 20) wrote:

Oh wow, now that I think about it, he'd be pissed that he is the face of the $20 fed res note.

Report this comment
#7) On April 01, 2009 at 5:50 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Kendy tried for silver backed dollar. Killed. Lincon turned the bankers down. Killed see a pattern here?

Report this comment
#8) On April 01, 2009 at 6:02 PM, XMFSinchiruna (28.56) wrote:

tfirst

Awesome comment... lol  

ayekappy and lquadland10

cue X-Files theme music...

whereaminow

Thanks for the Amen and the vid, brother

binve

Thanks for your kind e-mail the other day!! :)

 

Report this comment
#9) On April 01, 2009 at 6:16 PM, TMFLomax (< 20) wrote:

The article was great. Kind of reminds me of something I said in the fall to somebody... if our founding fathers had acted like everybody was acting we'd still be a colony. ;)

Report this comment
#10) On April 01, 2009 at 6:25 PM, XMFSinchiruna (28.56) wrote:

TMFLomax

Glad you liked it... :)

Now they knew a thing or two about "change we can believe in". :P

Report this comment
#11) On April 01, 2009 at 7:15 PM, redneckdemon (< 20) wrote:

I wonder if they would have been labeled as "Domestic Terrorists"?

Report this comment
#12) On April 01, 2009 at 8:34 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna, Absolutely! I meant every word!

Report this comment
#13) On April 01, 2009 at 10:15 PM, 100ozRound (30.55) wrote:

:::APPLAUSE:::

Report this comment
#14) On April 02, 2009 at 12:23 PM, XMFPhila100 (93.01) wrote:

Not that I don't agree with you in principle, but it's all been downhill since Alexander Hamilton got the ear of Washington. Jefferson and the anti-Federalists pushed back as hard as they could, but with the states in massive debt following the revolution, the federal government had little choice but to assume the debts of the states. Yes, this increased federal power in ways that were perhaps never intended, but the US may not have survived as one economic unit or one nation if that hadn't occurred. The central bank system has tradition in the US dating back to the First Bank of the US in 1791, though it has taken various forms and was suspended at times, the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 wasn't unprecedented. Remember, though, that Fed Reserve was created following major bank panics in 1873, 1893, and 1907 when European countries had central banks and we didn't. One could argue, that just as the centralizaton of the state's war debts following the revolution saved the union, the Fed saved our banking system (and by extension our economy). We can argue about this at novel length, but my point is that this ball towards more federal power has been rolling for some 230 years and has been gaining speed during the past 100 years. Want to change it? Run for office. It's a beautiful right that we all enjoy but very few exercise. 

The Constitution is a living document and open to interpretation and is the greatest gift the Founders left us. Would they agree with everything that's happened to the country since 1787? Definitely not, but it's a vastly different world from what they ever imagined. What I think they would be proud of is that we are still one country, The United States of America, and we continue to hold dear their sacred document. And that, my friends, is a miracle.

Report this comment
#15) On April 02, 2009 at 12:42 PM, whereaminow (77.51) wrote:

TMFPhila,

I would like to address your arguments one at a time.

1. The original States had other options besides turning to the federal government for assistance. Among these was repudiation of debt, which several states did in the 1830s and 1840s with positive economic consequences for the people. There is an ethical case for repudiation which few people ever consider. First, the debts are not between a private party and a creditor, but rather between a public entity and a public creditor both negotiating on behalf of private citizens who are largely kept in the dark. For example, consider the national, state, and municipal debts across the country. Has any private citizen ever been consulted before the debts were incurred? Or were they just told they were necessary after the fact? What are the terms of repayment, to whom is the money owed, etc... These aren't traditional debts by any stretch of the imagination. It's merely a usury system. Second, even if one were to allow that the debts were incurred under a good faith agreement, such as the necessity of the American Revolution, that does not inherently make the federal government's solution more practical or ethically superior? The monetary consequences were still the same, it was only the political consequences that were altered.

2.  The Bank Panics were not caused by any of the reasons you state. Bank panics are inherent in a fractional reserve banking system. The reason the Federal Reserve exists is to create money to give to banks that overextend themselves (and should otherwise go bankrupt). In other words, the Fed exists to reward bankers for failure and the expense of honest hard working American taxpayers. Notice also that the monetary consequences of bank closings remain the same today. The same amount of money is lost. It's just spread out over a larger group of people. It's the political consequences that have been altered.

3. The Bank Panics, it has been shown, were actually induced by J.P. Morgan himself to change the political climate for a more favorable discussion of central banking.

I welcome you to read and follow my series on Money Production to get a better understanding of the system and a glimpse at policy proposals that would make our world more stable financially.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On April 02, 2009 at 12:59 PM, bostoncelitcs (71.89) wrote:

The founding fathers would not believe we are fighting wars on 2 fronts when Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no WMD's, were not an imminent threat, and did not attack our country on 9/11.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement