Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?
By Ron Paul
Published 07/14/09
Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint's heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of "independence".
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics -- power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress's constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.
© 2009 Campaign for Liberty
In his latest C4L video, Dr. Paul discusses the House vote on Cap and Trade and reminds his colleagues that opposition to big government intervention should carry through to all acts against the Constitution.
Not according to 31,478 scientists. The global warming hysteria is mostly a part of the power elite depupulation agenda. Don’t believe me, check out the quotes at this site. Here is a good one:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
Ron Paul knows what is up…
Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.
Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.
In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:
“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”
Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.
It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom.
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.
More and more, governments are passing laws, signing treaties, and making policy that states that they own their citizens bodies. This is the antithesis to personal freedom and liberty. As Ron Paul states: “When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies.” This is all coming to a head with the new proposed swine flu vaccine.
Currently, the Obama administration has the power to enforce vaccinations in an epidemic or pandemic flu breakout, or even the threat of such. This was a measure provided within the Patriot Act.
In addition, there is The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which will have federal funding for each state that adopts a similar model. So far 38 states and the District of Columbia are on board to receive federal funding and enforce vaccinations with absolute police power, which includes detention and seizure of private property.
Currently, the Obama administration is also considering a program to ensure everyone gets three vaccinations a year as a preventative measure, in other words in lieu of an actual epidemic, starting perhaps this fall. Obama has already appropriated 1.5 billion dollars toward emergency swine flu vaccine production, and more funds are in the works.
From a Washington Post article of May 6, 2009, “The Obama administration is considering an unprecedented fall vaccination campaign that could entail giving Americans three flu shots — one to combat annual seasonal influenza and two targeted at the new swine flu virus spreading across the globe. If enacted, the multibillion-dollar effort would represent the first time that top federal health officials have asked Americans to get more than one flu vaccine in a year, raising serious challenges . . . (with) the ability to track potentially severe side effects.”
President Calderon of Mexico received dictatorial emergency powers from the Mexican congress during the recently exaggerated swine flu flap this past May. So he now has Mexico on board for the The North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza, which was finalized at the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) summit of August 2007 in Montebello, Quebec.
This plan involves Canada, the USA, and Mexico. The language involved with all these measures leaves the call to emergency action open for interpretation by a sole authority. That sole authority, currently within North America, is destined to be under the U.N.’s Dr. David Nabarro, the U.N. Influenza System Coordinator. This provides for the full police action of whatever military groups are available to enforce vaccinations, and it is top down from afar. So who makes your health decisions?
In Europe, the government of France is considering a plan of enforcing flu shots on all of its population. They are planning on allocating one billion euros for 100 million doses from three different pharmaceutical companies. Anne Laude, co-director of the Institute of Health at the Universite Paris Descartes, said, “. . . nobody would have the right, except in the case of a medical counter-indication, to refuse a vaccination”.
You may think that all this is beneficial. That at least the consequences of any epidemic or pandemic would be ameliorated. Actually, mass inoculations have a history of disaster, not publicized in the mass media, that you can read about if you go to some of the source links or urls after this article. A major one was the so called “Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918 when military personnel were required to be vaccinated for the first time.
Even the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons opposes enforced vaccinations because it violates the ethics of mutual consent.
The common arguement used by vaccine pushers goes like this: If you don’t get the vaccination you will affect the herd immunity. What a bunch of bull biscuits. If the vaccine actually worked to immunize those who took it, why would they worry about the people who didn’t take it?
Go to this website for enough information to make you shudder at the thought of you or anyone you care about getting vaccinated.
Thanks to NaturalNews.com and this article for much of the information in this post.
June 20, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
This week, the Obama administration unveiled another scheme to give more power to an already out of control Federal Reserve under the guise of regulatory “reform.” (The 85 page “plan” can be read in its entirety here.)
This Fed power grab will do nothing to help our economy or enable us to take control back from banksters and Wall Street insiders. Instead, their proposal will address our economic crisis by creating more rules, regulations, and government agencies. And of course, the plan is to spend more money we don’t have to implement this bureaucratic nightmare.
The Federal Reserve, currently taking hits from all sides, receives a substantial increase in powers from this proposal. Yes, you read that right. In the midst of the unprecedented squandering of TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, the Fed is going to get MORE power, unless you and I stop this scheme.
According to The Wall Street Journal:
The proposal, if passed into law, would represent one of the biggest changes ever in the Fed’s role. The central bank would win power to monitor risks across the financial system, and sweeping authority to examine any firm that could threaten financial stability, even if the Fed wouldn’t normally supervise the institution. The nation’s biggest and most interconnected firms would be subject to heightened oversight by the central bank….
Read the rest (which also has an Audit the Fed mention) here.
In another WSJ article, we find that:
The Fed emerges from the plan with the power to oversee from top to bottom almost any financial company in the country, including the firms’ foreign affiliates….
So any financial firm, even if it doesn’t actually own an insured depository institution, would be subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve.
The same institution that fueled the housing bubble and made our current economic crisis possible is now the one who gets to decide who poses a risk to the economy!
The idea that the Fed’s power would be increased right now is absurd.
Thanks to the efforts of Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty supporters, well over half of the House of Representatives is now on record supporting a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.
So why would Congress even consider granting the Fed new powers?
As you may have seen, recorded testimony from the Fed’s Inspector General shows she has NO IDEA how our money is being spent there and NO IDEA what is really going on — or at least won’t say.
And the central bank is under so much fire that it has to hire a lobbyist to defend itself on Capitol Hill.
You might assume that the Fed would be in retreat. Or at least that the Obama administration wouldn’t even THINK about granting them new powers right now.
Think again. Politics trumps logic once more.
Despite all the promises of “change” that were so easy to make during the primary season, the Obama administration is practicing business as usual.
Like previous administrations, its ideas involve centralizing power among a few under the guise of “streamlining” the process. Instead of achieving accountability, this plan will further empower the Fed and their allies on Wall Street and in international banks.
It all goes to show that our work to Audit the Fed is only beginning.
While the support we have so far achieved is historic, you and I are taking on more than just our nation’s central bank.
We are challenging a long-held, firmly entrenched mindset that begins and ends any conversation by asking how the federal government can increase its power.
So today, let’s do two things:
1. Urge your Congressman and Senators to support H.R. 1207/S. 604, Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, to pull back the curtain and expose the out of control Fed once and for all. If your Congressman or Senator is already a cosponsor, urge him or her to do everything in their power to ensure this vital bill comes to a vote in the near future.
2. Insist your Congressman and Senators resist granting any new power to the Fed by rejecting the Obama administration’s new financial regulatory scheme.
Thank you for all your work on behalf of the cause of freedom. In the face of growing threats to everything our movement stands for, your support enables Campaign for Liberty to champion the principles that made this nation great.
In Liberty,
John F. Tate
President
P.S. Your action today is vital to both the continued momentum on passing Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, AND to fight back against a new scheme from the Obama administration released this week to grant MORE power to the Fed.
Please act quickly, and contact Congress today! Visit our States page and click on your state to get contact information for your Congressman and Senators!
