Ron Paul on Live

Channel: Live
Date: 7/22/2009

Connell McShane: But I will begin by myself now with Congressman Ron Paul out of Texas to join us from Capitol Hill. It’s good to see you, Congressman. Thank you very much for coming on.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Connell McShane: We appreciate it.

Ron Paul: It’s good to be with you.

Connell McShane: All right. So, by the way, did you catch Senator Bunning with Chairman Bernanke today or you’re not around a television to see that?

Ron Paul: No, we’ve been on the House floor and we just got finished with some votes. I didn’t get to see it.

Connell McShane: It sounded like maybe you sent him an e-mail with the questions.

Ron Paul: Yeah.

Connell McShane: But they had a… maybe the best way of putting this is they had a healthy exchange with the chairman earlier today about the auditing of the Fed and what have you, but obviously, you did the same yesterday and for people who don’t know, Congressman Paul has a bill that is getting a lot of support on Capitol Hill. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve says, “Hey, wait a minute. We’re an independent body. We want to stay independent.” What’s wrong with that?

Ron Paul: Well, because it’s secret and they can spend a lot of money that’s off budget and they don’t have a right to do this, so I would say that we need to know exactly what they’re doing.

Connell McShane: Now, the problem is they don’t want to have you influencing, you being the Congress, generally speaking, influencing their decisions on monetary policies and in fact, Senator Bob Corker today, at that very same hearing, called a potential audit of the Federal Reserve or oversight a catastrophe taking away from their independence. What do you say to that?

Ron Paul: Well, I would say they’re completely wrong. First, we’re not taking over monetary policy. We’re allowed to examine it after they do it and what they did and why they did it. If you give $10 billion to Goldman Sachs through the discount window, don’t we have a right to know that and why they do it and who are the beneficiaries? But we’re not going to look over their shoulder and design a monetary policy. Congress couldn’t be able to do that. They wouldn’t be able to do it. But that’s not the purpose of it.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: The purpose is, you know, they claim they’re for transparency, but except for certain things that they don’t want to be transparent. So with some things, they don’t want you to know about, which is just about everything that is important. But we have an obligation. The American people want it and that’s why they’re demanding it through this audit bill.

Connell McShane: Well, yeah, and as you have a lot of support for it. Again, as I said in Capitol Hill, it’s really been building. Since the last time we’ve talked to you and we’ve had some other supporters to the bill on the air and even since then, it’s seems to building a groundswell of enthusiasm for people who may be angry like you are about the decisions that had been made and so and so forth.

But, you know, to your point about they want transparency in some areas and don’t in others. We have somebody on a few minutes ago who used to work at the Federal Reserve, David Jones. He was an economist there and we asked him about it and he was saying, “Yeah, you know what? I don’t like the idea of having a say and certainly in monetary policy, you don’t want politicians have any say on that.” You’ve said that you wouldn’t, but he did give in to the fact that when we were talking to him that he could see some instances where we’d like to see more transparency. You made and gave the Goldman Sachs’ example. I knew you would, so I brought that up to him as well.

Ron Paul: Right.

Connell McShane: And he said, “You know what? I can see that.” So in the bill, it’s a short bill, I think it’s only three pages, could there be something specific to put in that would outline we’ll have oversight of this, but not of this. Is it written specifically enough and do we need to get it a little more detailed?

Ron Paul: Well, no, what we do is we repeal the prohibitions. They say we cannot allow to audit the Fed right now, “except for”, and I repeal all the except fors, but you could add something and say that you wouldn’t need to know the precise details of monetary policy maybe for six months or a year. Bernanke claimed yesterday, he says, “How would it be,” he says, “it would be so politicized if we had a hearing one day and raise interest rates and they send the auditors in the next day.” Well, that’s a gross distortion of what it’s all about. That is not what is intended at all.

Connell McShane: So what would it look like? You’d wait for a while or what would the rule be?

Ron Paul: Well I think you could put a limit on it. I mean, how long would it take to get together an audit, design it and perform it? They’re not going to do it instantaneously on a day-to-day basis, so, yes, the American people are expecting this and I think we’re going to get it, but they’re going to work very hard and you can tell that there are so many articles coming out now that they say that we would be… if we had our way, it would immediately push interest rates up and it would be politicized.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: Well, what could be more political than Goldman Sachs getting money under the table, so to speak, or what could be more political than when it’s been notorious and it’s been known for many decades that chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board accommodate presidents when they’re up for re-election, reappointment to the Federal Reserve Board, so it’s already politicized. It’s not like…

Connell McShane: Bernanke would say or he had said, Congressman, Chairman Bernanke said that the influence would be implicit, not explicit, that the meetings would be, you know, that the governors wouldn’t speak openly, for example. They would be afraid that what they’re saying is being looked at too closely and that independence that has been at the center of the Federal Reserve since its creation just wouldn’t be there anymore.

Ron Paul: Well, I mean, that’s their argument, but why should we be denied the truth. That sort of like saying we’re not allowed to know about what the torturers are doing because it would make us look bad.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: I mean, if they have good policy and they’re designed right, they’re not cheating anybody and there’s no fraud, no special privileges, what are they afraid of? I mean, they’re getting tenacious now. So the harder they fight us, the more it stirs up the question, “what are they hiding?”

There is no reason for them to be hiding anything. We should know what they’re doing. They can literally create money and appropriate money and spend money. They’re a congress in themselves. They are a self-government. It’s against the law to spend money that is not appropriated, but they create money. They loan to governments. They loan to central banks. They get involved in international banking organizations and that’s just not… and now that we’re in this crisis and now that this will lead to a dollar crisis, people are getting very concerned.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: And they know where the mischief had been and once you realize that it’s the Federal Reserve that creates our business cycle, our inflations, our recessions, our depressions, that’s even more reason for us to look at monetary policy.

Connell McShane: And you’ve been one of the people that has pointed a finger directly at the Federal Reserve, whether it’s Bernanke or his predecessor Alan Greenspan for their role in this financial crisis. In fact, I believe and you can correct me if I’m wrong or take it to a different direction, that you… you know, you don’t even see the need for a central banking system at all. I mean, you’d like to see and what makes it interesting is that you like to change the system that as it is. I mean, you don’t want the system to be in place in the first place. You don’t think it works, right?

Ron Paul: No, they’ve asked me whether I think Bernanke should be fired and I think it’s irrelevant. I mean, who are you going to put in place. Do you want another central economic planner? It doesn’t work economically. It’s not authorized in the Constitution.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: The founders hated the idea of a central bank and we lived a long time up until 1914 without a central bank, so yes, freedom does work and sound money does work and it removes all the special interests of big government financing wars that we shouldn’t be in, financing the welfare state which we shouldn’t be in, and we wouldn’t be in this financial trouble, believe me, without a Federal Reserve system.

Connell McShane: Well, let me ask you about that because and you’re right, the history is right that every time that the central banking system was brought up before the early 1900s, the plan was defeated for one reason or another. It usually has been brought up though, and even one that was implemented around some sort of a crisis, some sort of a banking crisis where there was the need, the thinking was, for some sort of a central banking system. So then we certainly had a crisis. We all agree that there was a crisis in the economy last fall. What would have happened had there not been a central bank in place last fall? Bernanke, of course, and those… they would have argued that things would have been much worse.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but we wouldn’t have had the crisis.

Connell McShane: You don’t… it wouldn’t have gotten there in the first place, why is that?

Ron Paul: Oh, no. There’s no way, but there’s a good example and you might pursue and say, “Well, since we do have the Fed, we have the crisis, what should we do?” We should look in 1921, they inflated to finance World War I, then we had to have the correction, which is right and proper, we should have a correction and it was done hands off and in one year, it was over with.

But Hoover and Roosevelt felt like they were compelled politically to get involved and now we’re doing that wholesale. We’re doing it worse than ever. We’re doing it even worse than Japan did after 1989, so they’re on and on, to bail out everybody and prop up bad debt instead of liquidating it. You’ve got to get rid of the mistakes. You’ve got to make the corrections. So, yes, they created the problem and they are compounding the problem. But most of the inflationary bubble was not created by Bernanke, it was created by Greenspan.

Connell McShane: So you blame… the finger gets pointed to Greenspan and that’s why now that Bernanke is the chair, what do you think should happen to him? Do you think he’ll be reappointed or should he be reappointed as Fed chairman?

Ron Paul: Probably. It doesn’t matter. I mean, you’re not going to get anybody else that can manage a central economics at all whatsoever, so that’s not going to be of any benefit just to change him now.

Connell McShane: Now, all right. so…

Ron Paul: But I think he’ll probably be reappointed.

Connell McShane: Fair enough. So Bernanke, by the way, speaking now on the Senate side of the Capitol. Congressman Paul of Texas joins us from Capitol Hill today and he was part of the testimony and the questioning and answer session yesterday. You know, Congressman, before we let you go, there are a couple of… I mean, why don’t you weigh it on healthcare? We had a big debate about it earlier on this show. How is your vote going to go down in this healthcare bill?

Ron Paul: Well, I’m not going to vote to expand the role of government in healthcare. They’ve ruined it, just like the Federal Reserve ruined our financial system, so we’ve had government involved in education, in medicine, you know, in major ways since the early 1970s. We have Medicare. We have Medicaid. We have veteran’s benefits. We have organized and these planned medical care, managed care since the 1970s and it’s a disaster. Costs have gone up. Quality has gone down and now, what we want to do is give us more government and that’s not the solution at all. We need to believe once again that free markets can work. Free people can solve problems that governments cause mischief.

Governments have caused all the bureaucracy. They have caused the high cost of medical care and so why resort to the part of medical care that we detest? I mean, you can find all kinds of complaints from Medicare patients, Medicaid patients, and at Veterans Hospitals and yet we want to universalize that system and punish the people who are quite happy.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: It’s sort of like it’s TARP funds. Punish the people who were prudent and reward the people who were making boondoggles out of their speculations. So I would say with medicine, it looks like we’re doing the same thing.

Connell McShane: You know, I think it’s interesting that… I always think it’s very interesting that two people, or more than two people, but that people that are so well thought out on certain issues as you clearly are on many of these issues, particularly monetary policy, which you’ve spoken over the years can disagree so much. In another words that we can have somebody on yesterday that could see it completely from the other side whereas you see it this way and this whole idea of less government involvement, which is obviously getting a lot of traction of late, you know, some people have championed it for years. Alan Greenspan who you criticized, you know, had for many years, been known as a free market economist, someone who championed deregulation, hands off. He has come out in recent years and said, “You know what? That wasn’t totally right. You know, my thinking wasn’t right on that.” What would you think with someone like Greenspan who had been on your side, I would think, on a lot of these issues who had said, “You know what? I was wrong. These free markets don’t always work the right way.”

Ron Paul: Well, I think he got infected with some bug, by him being inside the beltway too long or being driven by the establishment because I’ve told him this personally. The things that he wrote in the 1960s about the gold and his major criticisms of the Fed and how inflation liquidates wealth from the innocent middle class… I mean, he was great. He was absolutely right. He talked a lot like an Austrian economist, but he rejected that. He became a Keynesian and it isn’t Greenspan alone that caused the problems. It’s the fact that the world basically has followed Keynes rather than Mises over these many years and we’ve gotten ourselves in this trouble. But right now, the undercurrent is that free market economics is alive and well. The numbers are growing. Keynesianism is dead, just as communism and socialism died in the last century and right now, we’re in the midst of things, but it will be proven that economic planning and inflationism and central banking, it’s a failure and we’re paying the price.

Connell McShane: Right.

Ron Paul: And this is going to go on for a while because we’re only in the early stages of the correction that has to happen.

Connell McShane: All right. We have to run, Congressman, but we always appreciate the back and forth. Congressman Ron Paul, thank you very much.

Ron Paul: Thank you.


  • Herewe Goagain
  • DanielL

    agent for justice that as the debt money system is they’re trying to control which in violation of the constitution under art.#1 sec.#8 1st ammendment now since 1913 dec.22 the federal reserve act. the fed reserve corp. for profit will not hand out and give our money they will lend to 1000 random people at interest and debt to be repaid. Search: and at the top center of this page in the issues link “sound money”.

  • Explain to me how if the fed or someone hands out say 100,000.00 to say 1000 random people, and they used it exclusively to pay off their debt and build for the future, how does that ruin the economy? It would get the creditors off their backs, and better their credit scores. It may also help prevent any future debt..

    • Herewe Goagain

      Where did the money come from?

      • the money comes from taxes collected from the rich..the fortune 1000 companies would be the main sources..

        • Herewe Goagain

          Where did those companies get the money?

          • government bailouts probably from taxpayers, or printed out of thin air..

  • Coacha Quintero

    Presently, the United States uses the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to create the financial statements for investors

    to base their investment decisions on. The International Accounting Standards Board wants to implement the International Financial Reporting Standards for 2013. When it

    does–IF it does, chaos will most likely ensue. They will further confound investors with a principles (rather than rules) based accounting system.

    Detractors of the principles/objectives based approach argue the absence of detailed rules opens the door to even more abuse. The Financial Accounting Standards Board is

    considering whether to move towards the objectives-oriented standard setting.

    The FASB’s Standard Setting Process:
    1. ID the problem: A measurement/reporting issue is identified by the Emerging Issues Task Force and placed on the FASB’s agenda.
    2. The Task Force: about 15 knowledgeable people appointed to advise the board on various matters.
    3. Research and analysis: FASB’s technical staff investigates the issue.
    4. Discussion Memorandum: The DM is prepared and disseminated to interested parties.
    5. Public response: Public hearings are held to discuss the issue and letters of response are sent to the FASB which then analyzes this feedback.
    6. Exposure draft (ED): It details the proposed treatment for the problem.
    7. Public response: Written responses to the ED are accepted and analyzed. The ED is revised, if necessary, depending on the board’s analysis.
    8. Statement issued: An SFAS is issued if four of the seven FASB members support the revised ED.

    It makes me wonder who is sitting on the Board and whose interests they have at heart.

    Still, 5. And 7. Involve public response. We should all get involved in THIS if they don’t want to audit the FED! They should be stopped before they put the last nail in America’s (and our) coffin!!!

  • DanielL

    everyone, review the issues tab on the top, center of this home page and go into sound money.. great fact. In memory of Aaron Rousso.

  • No Problem

    The Paradox of Thrift?

    The Nobel Prize–winning economist and Gray Lady columnist Paul Krugman is now worried about the “paradox of thrift,” the theory that, when consumers save too much en masse, the economy is worse off because there is not enough consumption.

    But as economist Frank Shostak explains, it is savings – not demand – that enables the expansion of production of goods and services. “In short, no effective demand can take place without prior production,” Shostak writes. “If it were otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time ago.” In other words, you can’t print production and prosperity, much as the Fed may try. And Ben Bernanke is trying.

    For those not familiar with Krugman’s policy suggestions, he wrote back in August 2002 that “[t]o fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

    Our ancestors are rolling in their graves.

    ‘The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.’

    • Nate Y

      Nice post.

      There’s no such thing as “The Paradox of Thrift”

  • G
  • longshotlouie

    Bernanke Blows It
    Clean out your desk, Benny

  • Root Boy

    You have to thank FOX Business for bringing HR 1207 front and center – this time with Connell McShane – What I like about Foxbiz is that you have longer pieces than any other network to let the speaker not only establish a position on an issue, but SUBSTANTIATE by drawing on history,theory, and analysis. Connell’s piece with RP totaled approx. 13 minutes, a sharp contrast to conventional “network news” that work with much shorter segments, sound bite question, desired sound bite answers.

  • Philip Lockerman

    Arn”t you glad you don’t get all the government you pay for!!!If you use the N.N.D.B. search engine you”ll see that the Federal Reserve, the Federal reserve banks,the bullion banks have some if not most of their chairpersons,board of directors etc..are members of the Council on Foreign Relations,The Tri-laterial commission, and attend the yearly closed door Bilderberg Group meetings….with inpunety…and no accountability.Andrew Jackson and Kennedy wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve and what happened to them?We need to have accountability and transparency (or at least opaqueness)in our government!!!It”s “WE THE PEOPLE” not “THEM THE GOVERNMENT”!!!THANKS FOR LENDING ME YOUR EAR(S).

  • Philip Lockerman

    Arn”t you glad you don’t get all the government you pay for!!!If you use the N.N.D.B. search engine you”ll see that the Federal Reserve, the Federal reserve banks,the bullion banks have some if not most of their chairpersons,board of directors etc..are members of the Council on Foreign Relations,The Tri-laterial commission, and attend the yearly closed door Bilderberg Group meetings….with inpunety…and no accountability.Andrew Jackson and Kennedy wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve and what happened to them?We need to have accountability and transparency (or at least opaqueness)in our government!!It”s “WE THE PEOPLE” not “THEM THE GOVERNMENT”!!!THANKS FOR LENDING ME YOUR EAR(S).

  • Matt Pileggi

    Awesome! Ron Paul is always consistent on these matters, never trying to dodge public opinion. He speaks clearly, simply, and ruled by common sense. Those are all things the Founders valued and knew were required of sound government. They were proven right so many years ago, yet we continually want to separate from that! It’s crazy! Let’s stick to the wonderful example that was the founding of the United States, that which made the greatest nation in the history of the world, and let’s finally shed this insanity that has been dragging us down – back down even below the level of Europe again.

  • QuinnWard

    If going by the Constitution then congress is supposed to have the power of the purse; but with the existence of The Federal Reserve that doesn’t hold true. Essentially, the Fed can do things with our money without ever even letting Congress know what they are doing and why they are doing it.

    • DanielL

      Oh!ya,QuinnWard your saying what is true (congress shall have the right to; coin and create the value of the dollar thereof.)reference Art.#1 Sec.#8 1st ammendment of the Constitution clearly this law is in violation. Congress and the Senate need to realize they have this documented right already and re-declare on the floors of the houses.Then take the power to manage our currency to the top and the bottom,” for We the people.” No audit to the fed reserve corp.Completely take over our treasury and mint and get busy with it,account for our country’s dollar, hire accounting personal to monitor our daily needs.Then distribute it efficiently without debt and interest. Currently We the people,are paying for this now with taxes fed.,state e.g.

    • Christine

      Our job is to educate Americans and get more democrats to join the push for the audit. On most bills that go through the house and the senate, the majority party (deomocrats) dominate legislation that is passed. First we audit and expose, any bill following to abolish the FED will be self-evident to all Americans and expose which side those in the house and the senate are on during a debate as well. It will tell us what we need to know, more than just about the FED. It will tell us about the politicians that are in Washington to “serve the people”. The FED even alters the outcomes of our voting process, how un-American is that?! The control of our monetary system buys the FED everything. We can no longer tolerate their maniuplation of our wealth. We lose at the game as it is currently designed. Hopefully this can be changed before the middle class is whiped out. That would be devastating to us economically and politically.

      • Lindsey Brutus

        Christine: I couldn’t say it any better!!!

  • Chip Block
  • Richard Adams

    I have a question: if we got rid of the fed and tied our currency to something tangible, what would it be? Is there enough gold in that fort to represent all the value we need to create an economy? And Ron Paul’s economic advisor guy says he is putting money in other currencies, like Singapore I guess. But what are the stable currencies of the world tied to? Or are all the world currencies fiat money? I guess having a fiat currency that couldn’t be printed willy-nilly by a secretive central bank and was kept in the control of the people would be much better if we didn’t have anything to tie it to.

    • Herewe Goagain
    • QuinnWard

      But what are the stable currencies of the world tied to? Or are all the world currencies fiat money?

      If their currency is tied to our dollar then their currency is fiat.

    • QuinnWard

      I guess having a fiat currency that couldn’t be printed willy-nilly by a secretive central bank and was kept in the control of the people would be much better if we didn’t have anything to tie it to.

      A currency backed by tangible assets would restrict the government’s spending. They would no longer be capable of spending more than they have. Currently, the government pays for all it’s wars and social spending i.e. vote buying, with inflation, the hidden tax. Who creates inflation and bubbles via creation of money out of thin air? The Federal Reserve.

      • Harry Oliveto

        100% in accord with you.

        Dr.Paul represents the average, honest, down to earth, hard working american citizen we find all over our dear USA.

        What it would be difficult for the common people to do (as well as Congress now) is to get red of the Wall St. parasites running the US Goverment finances for their own profit. Situation is, I am afraid, out of control.

        Evidence #1: OBAMA wants to give more power to the FEDERAL RESERVE. This institution is the main culprit.



    • Dave

      Gold to dollar is a ratio and you can set it to whatever you want. So if today it take $1000 to buy an ounce of gold (random example, not true) then if we converted today we could make that the statistic.

      Here is the thing, over time the dollar becomes deflationary due to population growth and the need for the dollar increases as the economy grows. Now if a correction was never made then inevitably, in some point in the future, a penny could buy an ounce of gold. Of course this is a great thing for savers and retirees.

      Now I don’t think you would see that happen. As was the case when the dollar was tied to gold, the ratio can change and inflation can occur. The benefit however is the rate of inflation is very simple to calculate and it is obvious how much wealth you just instantly lost. As such, the people have the power to control government to resist their loss in wealth.

      This is the power struggle that Keynesian economics circumvents by tying money to GDP. First, GDP is a statistic, and like all statistics are several degrees of freedom away from the primary data. The rules are set by those that ultimately know the outcome they want to achieve. Additionally the rules for accounting for inflation are set by those set groups but that is not directly tied to GDP and money growth (see the video of RP grilling Bernake). As such inflation is an arbitrary statistic that is then not the true inflation, or loss of wealth, by those who don’t get the money before it hits the general marketplace for circulation (everyday citizens).

      The gold standard certainly limits government spending but more importantly it limits wealth errosion which actually grows the middle class and allows people to save. When you think save, think of loss of the need for loans. When you think loss of the need for loans, think of the high intrest rates. Think then of those intrest rates compounding the growth of the individual wealth of people by a deflationary dollar. This removes the need for credit, which is set up and assisted by the Fed and treasury. As such you would then not need credit, which by extension would mean you would not need a Fed or Treasury. Additionally this would be bad for big banks because the need for things like a 401k or IRA to speculate on the market goes away because your money is making you money just by being in a savings account. As such, it is better to be a smaller bank than a huge conglomerate that has much more risks at its branches.

      By going to a gold standard you destabilize the system and give the world back to the consumer. Its actually a scary thought… for some.

      • Nate Y

        Yeah if we had gold as money (rather, free market sound money) the people would hold the power. It would be scary for the current government/bank fascist status quo. That is a good thing. Power and wealth would be more evenly distributed as a result.

        • Alex

          I dont think the gold standard will help enough, i dont remember when this happened but there was some thing put into place that took all of the americans gold for some war maybe, i think this was in the 1930s-1950s(The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933). and so they confiscated all this gold and they got around $35 per oz( given to the americans), and then after days and days this started to quickly rise in price, so all these foreign country’s profited(while americans werent allowed too i belive?) immensely after prob inflation rose, but then when i think ronald regan came in he made the gold commision to anayalize how much gold they had by looking into this fort sumin. where all that gold was put into and they said that there was nothing there, so we were somehow robbed of out gold and now its said that these bankers may hold around 2/3 of the gold supply, and so then could make it so they could profit off a gold standard by using those scarce tactics, and we tried this gold standered before for 4 years and in those years it was depression. google the money

          • Nate Y

            Let’s not get lost in the fog of “the gold standard”. The important thing is to make our way back to sound money. That is, commodity/commodity backed money. Plenty of people have written at length about how this could be achieved. Of course there would be difficulties during the transition, but they’re preferable to the destruction and redistribution of wealth already caused by fiat money. They simply can’t keep the fiat money game going for much longer.

          • Sean

            according to you

          • Sean

            with all the debt we are in, i doubt we will ever switch back to sound money. sorry.

          • Christine

            We’re not even positive that the U.S. has any gold. Fort Knox has not been audited recently.

            When they talk of the FED printing money out of thin air, it just makes me wonder why we all just don’t use our computers and printers to print off our own means of exchange. The money they print is nearly meaningless, except what still remains in the minds of Americans for a little while longer.

            The FED has some pretty strong resistance to an audit of their activities, delayed accounting of actions taken provided to congress so congress can tell if the choice that was made was a good one or not. Congress has no way of knowing. Congress been trying to lead our country while being kept in the dark about our finances. How is that even possible?

          • Alex

            maybe since bankers can make money out of thin air they just buy congress and senate seats that hold big power, idk….i cant see them being that stupid, but then again idk.

          • VR
          • Christine

            This is a very intersting read. It sums up numerous criminal acts the FED has done. To think we have this grand country we are so proud of run by criminals…

            Notice at the bottom that McFadden was shot at twice and poisoned, saved, but died…
            “Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens’s “heart-failure sudden-death” on Oct. 3, 1936, after a “dose” of “intestinal flu,” “Pelley’s Weekly” of Oct. 14 said”

            We don’t have “doses” of an illness, but we do have doses of medications or vaccinations. Hmmm…sound familiar?

            McFadden’s Speech on the Federal Reserve Corporation

  • Greetings
    MICA Mortgage Ins. Co Of Am warned was very concerned about risky lending with US real estate market Sept 23rd 2005 to Fed Ben B.
    March 2006 BIS report grave risks in subprime market.,635051-5,00.html
    Ron Paul & William White great words of wisdom
    Prayerfully v

  • Herewe Goagain
  • Agent for Justice

    The fed wants to cover up decades of fraud and illegal activity, printing money and just handing it out to their friends..isn’t that great, I need 300,000.00 to pay for some additions to my castle, OK I’ll print it for you, oh I have it printed already here you go..

  • DanielL

    {People just need to know our Constitution “states Art.1# sec.8# 1st ammendment Congress shall have the power to issue, coin, and create the U.S. dollar thereof. } Not bankers, Congress & Senate just needs to declare this and manage our dollar threw the treasury and the mint. Without debt and interest. Eliminate the biggest Ponzi scam ever. Thank you no more fed taxes…

  • Never Forget

    Ron Paul tells it like it is …
    … Keynesianism is Dead