I mean for this thread to be a running tally. I'll add more whenever I think of anything and I'm motivated to write about it.


The Crisis of 1913:


The constitution says that "The Congress shall have Power To ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;..."

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 delegates the authority to create money and regulate the value thereof to a private central bank with no oversight from congress (so said Alan Greenspan).

It doesn't say it explicitly, but the fact that the constitution used the word "coin", and that they said in another section that states can only make gold and silver as payment, seems to imply that the founding fathers meant for US money to be gold and silver. The coinage act of 1792 defined a US dollar as 24.057 g. So, I don't see anywhere explicitly that US money is only supposed to be gold and silver, but the context of "coin", of individual states only being able to make those legal tender, and the first law defining the value of a dollar defining it in terms of mass of silver, all point heavily towards their intention that only precious metals were to be used as money.

Contradiction 1: The intention of the founding fathers that only gold and silver were to be used as money is contradicted by the existence dollars backed by nothing.


Congress delegated its authority to the Federal Reserve. If it is possible for congress to delegate its authority, then there are no more checks and balances. Congress could delegate all its authority to the president, for instance, and then there'd be no need for congress to exist at all. Also, if congress delegates its authority to unelected officials (as it does to the FDA, EPA, ATF etc), then there is no more representation by the people in law making, which is the whole point of the republican form of government.

Contradiction 2: If the congress has the authority to delegate its authority (as it delegated it to the FED), then in practice, there are no more checks and balances, and neither is there any longer a republican form of government.


The FED creates all currency through loans. All these loans must be paid back with interest. However, the money to pay back the interest does not exist. Therefore, the debt cannot be paid. What happens in practice is that when the rate of monetary inflation is greater than the rate of interest on the debt, the size of the debt relative to GDP decreases, and there is an economic boom, but bondholders (and all owners of debt) lose money. When the rate of interest is greater than the rate of inflation, then the debt becomes a larger percentage of GDP, and there is an economic contraction, because people are servicing the debt instead of doing other things that they want to do.

The 14th amendment says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." However, as discussed above, our monetary system makes it literally impossible to pay the debt.

Contradiction 3: The 14th amendment says that the validity of public debt shall not be questioned, but our monetary system makes it impossible to ever pay the debt.


If the FED and other banks do not loan money at a faster rate than interest payments need to be made, then eventually, all dollars in existence will disappear in order to pay off the principal on the debt, but the interest on the debt will still exist. Therefore, in practice, no one can finance anything with dollars without the consent of the FED and other banks. But the constitution says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ..." How can the constitution be the supreme law of the land, if the government defined by the constitution can finance nothing without the consent of private banks?

Contradiction 4: The US government is not sovereign, because it can finance nothing (and neither can anyone else finance anything with dollars) without the consent of private banks.


The FED has the power to print unlimited money to bribe politicians and buy media influence. The FED can print as much money as it wants, we have legal bribery (called lobbying) in the USA, and the FED has never been audited. I haver no proof that the FED or banks associated with it are bribing politicians, but if they were, there'd be no way for us to find out. If they were doing it, they would probably be doing it through proxies, so that it would not be easy to find out. They could also use this money, for instance, to buy all of the media in the country, so that they could control the information that Americans can see. If they were doing this, that would explain the state of the news.

Contradiction 5: The US government is supposed to be sovereign, and there's supposed to be freedom of the press, but the FED has the legal right to spend unlimited money buying politicians and news outlets.