The Federal Reserve: The True Story of the Hijacking of the American Economy

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

The Federal Reserve


The Creation of the Federal Reserve

On November 22, 1910, a train carrying financiers who represented about one-third of the wealth of the world left Hoboken, New Jersey, for a nine day trip to Jekyll Island, Georgia, just down the coast from Savannah, my home town . . . to hunt ducks.

They sure didn’t act like duck hunters. They were quite sneaky. According to Bertie Charles Forbes, founder of Forbes Magazine (the grandfather of its current Editor, Steve Forbes), writing in December of 1916:

“Picture a party of the Nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing [hastening] hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking on to an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learned their identity and disclosed to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance.”[1]

There’s nothing wrong per se with being sneaky. The Manhattan Project was sneaky, and it probably saved many thousands of American lives (and millions of Japanese lives) because it appeared that Japan was not going to surrender and that we would have to invade the Japanese home islands. Also, it turns out that Japan had a sneaky little atomic project of its own and was about a month away from being able to drop a nuclear device on the U.S. That threat was eliminated when Little Boy and Fat Man exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Jekyll Island boys were about to drop a bomb of their own, a financial bomb. The real purpose of the trip was to create a new banking system and a new form of money for the United States of America.

There were seven men in attendance at the Jekyll Island conference. I have highlighted the names of the men and banks I regard as significant. U.S. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI); Frank Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York (let’s call it “City Bank”); Paul Warburg, a partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co., an investment bank (“Kuhn & Loeb”); A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Charles Norton, President of the First National Bank of New York (let’s call it “First Bank”); Benjamin Strong, President of Bankers Trust; Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan & Company.

Who Was In Charge?

Some say that there were really only two men at the conference: John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan -- though neither was physically present. Rockefeller was the oil tycoon who had become the richest man in history. Morgan ruled a financial and railroad empire. Some said he was the richest man in history.

“From the 1890s until World War II, much of American political history, of programs and conflicts, can be interpreted not so much as “Democrat vs. Republican,” but as the interaction or conflict between the Morgans and their allies on the one hand, and the Rockefeller … alliance on the other.”[2]

Rockefeller and Morgan were the real architects of the Federal Reserve because they absolutely controlled the men and banks which built it and ran it.

All of the banks represented at Jekyll Island were New York banks, and they were the largest and most prestigious in the country. Rockefeller’s two flagship banks were “City Bank” and Kuhn & Loeb. The Morgan banks were J.P. Morgan & Co., “First Bank,” and Bankers Trust.

“City Bank” and “First Bank,” the country’s largest commercial depository banks, merged in 1955 to eventually become the core of today’s Citibank. In 1913 Kuhn & Loeb (later to become American Express) and J.P. Morgan & Co. were the largest investment banks in the U.S. The latter would later become J.P. Morgan Chase.

[It is no coincidence that J.P. Morgan Chase, America’s largest bank, was created by the 1996 merger of the flagship bank of the Morgan empire (J.P. Morgan & Co.) and the flagship bank of the Rockefeller empire (Chase Manhattan Bank). They still rule the roost.]

Back in the day, if you wanted to create an alliance, you apparently cemented it with marriage. In the 1870s, Rockefeller’s brother William decided to buy into City Bank when James Stillman was its president. William’s two sons promptly married James’ two irresistible daughters. Shortly thereafter, the bank became the repository of the Rockefellers’ oil and railroad assets and income.

Senator Nelson Aldrich was the Majority Whip of the Senate. He would later become the grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller because his daughter married “Junior,” Rockefeller’s son. It really could have been the sheerest of coincidences that the world’s richest man and the Senate’s staunchest supporter of big business and the “Money Trust” (Big Banks) produced offspring who found each other irresistible. It really could have.

Henry Davison and Benjamin Strong were clearly “Morgan’s men.” Rothbard tells us that

“Benjamin Strong’s entire life had been a virtual preparation for his assumption of power at the Federal Reserve. Strong was a long time protégé of the immensely powerful Henry P. Davison, the number two partner of the Morgan bank just under J.P. Morgan himself, and effective operating head of the Morgan world empire. . . . When the Morgans created the Bankers Trust Company in 1903 to compete in the rising new trust business, Davison named Strong as its secretary, and by 1914, Strong had married the firm’s president’s daughter and himself risen to president of Bankers Trust.”[3]

The NY Fed Controls the Whole System

Much has been made about whether the Federal Reserve is public or private. The truth is that it is both. The Fed is a partnership between several large private banks and the federal government. First let’s take a look at the private nature of the Fed.

Federal courts have consistently ruled that the Fed is a private corporation. The banks at Jekyll were not just the midwives of the Federal Reserve. They (and several other private banks) owned and do own the Federal Reserve. They are the Federal Reserve.

If the Fed is so federal, why is it that all of its stock is owned by private banks? Why is it that the federal government has never owned a single share?

A better question is why is there any need to even issue shares if the Fed is federal? No other federal agency has ever issued shares of stock. What’s the point?

Like the First and Second Banks of the “United States,” the private nature of the new central bank was hidden by calling it “Federal” and the name “Reserve” was added to imply a guarantee against bank runs. The “central” bank stigma was avoided by creating twelve regional banks, although eleven of them were strictly ornamental. One of the twelve completely ruled the system.

Because the New York banks dominated national banking in 1913, only New York banks were welcome at Jekyll, and the Federal Reserve Act was structured to assure continued New York domination. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was the largest (in assets) and the most important of the 12 banks because it is where monetary policy was actually implemented. Whoever controlled the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the whole system.

So, who did control that bank? Share ownership usually translates into corporate control, and when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was created in 1913, the largest shareholders were . . . [wait for it] . . . the Rockefeller and Morgan groups, each taking exactly 35,000 shares each, showing that in creating the Federal Reserve they worked together as equal partners, not as rival empires. The major shareholders were City Bank, 30,000 shares; First Bank, 15,000 shares; National Bank of Commerce, 21,000 shares; Chase National Bank, 6,000 shares; and Marine National Bank, 6,000 shares.[4]

The Banks That Built the Fed Still Rule

As mentioned above, City Bank and First Bank later merged to become Citibank. In 1959 the National Bank of Commerce became Morgan Guaranty Trust which in 2000 merged with Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan (Chase National Bank had merged with the Bank of Manhattan) to form J.P. Morgan Chase. So, the largest banks in the country were and are the principal owners of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Thousands of banks have either gone out of business or have become second or third tier banks since 1913, but the banks which created the Federal Reserve are still on top of the hill.

“It is all too clear, on examining the origin and early years of the Fed, that both in its personnel and chosen monetary and financial policies, the Morgan Empire was in almost supreme control of the Fed.[5]

That control was guaranteed by the identity of the man who was selected to the critical post of Governor of the New York Fed, a man, furthermore, who was by temperament very well equipped to seize in fact the power that the structure of the Fed could offer him. That man, who ruled the Federal Reserve System with an iron hand from its inception until his death in 1928, was one Benjamin Strong.”[6]

Morgan domination ended during Roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1935, control was stripped from the New York Fed and given to the Federal Open Market Committee, dominated by the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.

“The New Deal constituted a concerted Bringing Down and displacement of Morgan dominance; a coalition of opposition financial out-groups combined in the New Deal to topple it from power. This coalition was an alliance of the Rockefellers; a newly-burgeoning Harriman power in the Democratic Party; newer and brasher Wall Street Jewish investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, pushing Kuhn, Loeb into the shade; and such ethnic out-groups as Irish Catholic buccaneer Joseph P. Kennedy, Italian-Americans such as the Giannini family of California’s Bank of America . . .”[7]

Since World War II the various financial interests have entered into a permanent re-alignment: the Morgans and the other financial groups have taken their place as compliant junior partners in a powerful “Eastern Establishment,” led unchallenged by the Rockefellers. [8] Also, though Bank of America and an emergent Wells Fargo are included in the “Big Four” banks, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup continue to dominate because of their initial control over the Federal Reserve System.

The Man Who Still Calls the Tune

Under Rockefeller control the Fed continued to be run by one man. Business is transacted and decisions are made upon motions by the Chairman of the Board of Governors, who rules the roost with near absolute power. Take Alan Greenspan, for example.

“Greenspan’s motions have never failed . . . [W]ith every extra year of his Chairmanship [1987-2006], his ability to move the FOMC the way he wants has just gotten stronger … [I]n the 47 publicly announced votes since the beginning of 1994, there have been just 18 with a single dissent and only one with “no votes.”[9]

The Fed is more than just a privately owned bank. The Fed is the flagship of a cartel, a monopoly consisting of America’s largest and strongest financial services companies.

cartel: 1. An international syndicate, combine, or trust, formed especially to regulate prices and output in some form of business. 2. A coalition of special-interest groups having a common cause. Synonym: monopoly, merger, combination.[10]

These financial service companies are not just “banks” because, largely due to the repeal of various anti-trust laws, banks have re-combined with investment houses, insurance companies and brokerage firms. Citigroup is a good example.

Headed by the Fed, the financial services cartel has entered into a partnership with government. The Fed was created pursuant to an Act of Congress, the Federal Reserve Act, and its Board of Governors is appointed by the President. The partnership is so thorough and interlocked with government that personnel changes between the two realms (via the fabulous “revolving door”) could be monitored with a stop watch.

Also, today’s financial empires are interlocked with the huge (non-financial) business corporations This should come as no surprise because many of these conglomerates existed even before he Fed was created in 1913. For example, it is obvious that a banking cartel created by Rockefeller and Morgan would include the oil, steel and rail empires which they dominated. It is therefore likely that the cartel headed by the Fed includes a large part of corporate America today.


Seriously, Who Really Created the Fed?

A powerful case can be made that there was really only one man at the Jekyll Island conference and that his name was neither Rockefeller nor Morgan. The argument is that the Federal Reserve was internationally orchestrated by the Rothschild banking dynasty, then headed in London by Nathan Rothschild II, Governor of the Bank of England.

Rothschild means “Red Shield.” The Rothschild coat of arms is a fist clutching 5 arrows on a red shield. The Rothschild banking empire began in 1785 when Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of a goldsmith, gave Nathan (one of his five sons) the equivalent of $3,000,000 to invest in London. Nathan used most of the money to finance the military campaigns of the Duke of Wellington.

The Rothschilds were famous for their information network. On June 18, 1815, Nathan stationed a courier at the northwest side of the battlefield at Waterloo. When it became apparent that Wellington would defeat Napoleon, the courier raced for the English Channel and reached Rothschild at Folkestone on the southeast coast of England well in advance of Wellington’s official messenger.

The next morning Nathan occupied his usual seat at the London Stock Exchange, appearing disheveled and panic-stricken. He began selling large quantities of his securities at ridiculously low prices.

“Panic immediately swept the Exchange. Rothschild is selling; he knows we have lost the Battle of Waterloo. Rothschild and all of his known agents continued to throw securities on to the market. Bella [author of The Romance of The Rothschilds] says “nothing could arrest the disaster. At the same time he was quietly buying up all securities by means of secret agents whom no one knew.”[11]

When Wellington’s courier finally arrived the next day, the market skyrocketed. In a few hours, Nathan Rothschild had gained control of the British stock and bond markets. Claiming in 1914 that the story wasn’t true, his grandson sought to enjoin the publishing of a book on the subject. The court ruled that the story was true and dismissed the lawsuit.[12]

The Rothschild Banking Dynasty

With the enormous profits gained from this caper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent his other four sons to open additional banking houses in Paris, Frankfurt, Naples and Vienna. By the mid-nineteenth century, the Rothschilds dominated European banking. In 1850, Nathan’s brother James Rothschild’s 600 million francs exceeded the combined wealth of all other French bankers and was topped only by the King’s 800 million.

The Rothschilds dominated the Bank of England because they dominated the major London banks whose members sat on the board.

“He [Nathan Rothschild, Sr.] was succeeded by his eldest son, Nathan Mayer (1840-1915), who became the first Lord Rothschild when he was raised to the peerage and took his seat in the British House of Lords in 1885. The first Lord Rothschild went on to become the Governor of the Bank of England, with untold power to influence the world financial system.”[13]

One day Junior (I mean “His Lordship Baron Nathan de Rothschild”) boasted Let me issue and control a country’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.” According to the historian, John Reeves in his work, The Rothschilds:

“Little could Mayer Amschel have anticipated that his sons would in after years come to exercise such an unbounded sway that the peace of nations would depend upon their nod; that the powerful control they exercised on the European money markets would enable them to pose as the arbiters of peace and war, since they could at their pleasure withhold or furnish the pecuniary means required to carry on a campaign.

But this, incredible as it may seem, was what their vast influence, combined with their enormous wealth and unlimited credit, enabled them to do, for no firms existed strong enough to oppose them for any length of time, or rash enough to take up a business which the Rothschilds had refused. To reach this exalted position, Mayer Amschel and his sons required the cooperation of the states, but, when once he had climbed over their backs and reached the height of his ambition, he was independent of all aid and could act with the greatest freedom, whilst the states remained in a suppliant attitude at his feet.[14]

The Rothschilds had become the wealthiest family in the world. By the end of the nineteenth century, some experts claimed that they controlled over half of the wealth of the world. This was the “Age of Rothschild,” and it was said that “in Europe there is but one power and that is Rothschild.”

To determine the extent of the involvement of the Rothschilds in the creation of the Federal Reserve, it is necessary to consider the seventh member of the duck hunt and his banking connections.

The Rothschilds’ Front Man

There was one man who actually did the dirty work at Jekyll Island.

Paul Warburg and his brother Felix arrived in the U.S. in 1902 from the banking firm of M.M. Warburg (out of Hamburg, Germany.) They went straight to the penthouse of the investment bank Kuhn & Loeb. Paul promptly married the irresistible Nina Loeb, daughter of the firm’s founder, and Brother Felix married the irresistible Frieda Schiff, daughter of the firm’s CEO and senior partner, Jacob Schiff, who had already married Mr. Loeb’s other irresistible daughter, Theresa.

It is settled history that Kuhn & Loeb (Rockefeller’s investment bank) became a Rothschild front shortly after Schiff arrived from Frankfurt in January of 1875. Jacob Schiff was born in the Rothschild/Schiff house in Frankfort, which the two families shared, having lived together in Hamburg for generations. (That could have been just a coincidence. It really could have.)

“Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which represents the Rothschild interest on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister to the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds, and the Rockefellers, in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world in America.”[15]

At the age of 18, John D. Rockefeller was a commodities trader in Ohio. His rise to riches was meteoric. Twenty years later he had become the richest person in history. He controlled 90% of all the refining and marketing of oil in the world, and he owned a third of all oil wells. Rockefeller had near total control of the oil industry, and Standard Oil was the most powerful company on earth.

Rockefeller was a real workhorse, but to go from poverty to world-class mogul in 20 years, you need more than horsepower. You need financing. By his own admission, Rockefeller borrowed heavily during this period. From whom?

“Schiff was the United States representative of the Rothschilds, a family who were supposed to have little influence or interest in America! It was also a Rothschild bank, the National City Bank of Cleveland, which financed the early expansion of the Rockefellers and the Harrimans. The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds (via Kuhn Loeb) would eventually merge some of their banking interests to form the Chase Manhattan Bank.”[16]

J. P. Morgan, Man of Mystery

Also, a very powerful case can be made that J. P. Morgan and Co. was a front for the Rothschilds. The company was created in London by one George Peabody to further various Rothschild enterprises. This arrangement was “inherited” by Peabody’s business partner, Junius S. Morgan, who handed the ball off to his son, J. P. Morgan, Sr. (hereinafter known as “Pierpont.”)

The house of Morgan was actually managed for its benefactor and principal, N. M. Rothschild Company of London. Being Rothschild agents, the Morgans were not fabulously wealthy because almost all of their profits were sent to their handlers.

Upon the death of Pierpont Morgan’s son, Jack, Andrew Carnegie made the following remark about the size of his estate: “And to think he was not a rich man.” [17]

“As they had been at his father’s death, everybody was surprised by the modesty of Jack’s estate - only $16 million before taxes and expenses, $4.6 million afterward.”[18]

A more complete proof that the house of Morgan was a façade for the house of Rothschild is beyond the scope of this book. Should the reader wish to inquire further, I recommend the biography Pierpont Morgan & Friends, Anatomy of a Myth.

Like Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg was immediately made a partner and given a salary of $500,000 (an exorbitant sum, the equivalent of $168,000,000 in today’s dollars, when a decent annual wage for a laborer in 1910 was $500). The five hundred grand was obviously for the purpose of lobbying for the creation of the Federal Reserve. It sure as hell wasn’t compensation for services rendered. He just got off the boat!

Warburg was “The Man” at Jekyll Island. It was he who drafted the Federal Reserve Act in accordance with the blueprint which had been perfected on the Continent. (It would be interesting to compare the wording of the Federal Reserve Act and the legislation which created the Reichsbank in his native Germany.) Paul Warburg briefed the other six at Jekyll on how it was all going to come down.

These men have been hailed as patriots. What a load of rubbish! They were really implementing the tried and true Rothschild modus operendi of taking over the financial systems of nations by creating central banks and then profiting from mayhem, like economic crises and wars, creating them when necessary.

“Just in Time” For World War I

Paul Warburg became a naturalized American citizen in 1911, so, at Jekyll Island (November 22—December 1, 1910) he was still a German citizen! In 1912, he was decorated by the Kaiser! On December 22, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed, and, the ink barely dry on his naturalization papers, Paul Warburg was made President and Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States of America, serving from 1914-1918.

He must have been very surprised to learn that the first Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was fellow Jekyll Islander Benjamin Strong, who served from 1914 to 1928. Small world! [Note: Back then, Board members were called “Presidents” and heads of the Fed regional banks were called “Governors.” The titles were reversed during the New Deal.]

The Federal Reserve was up and running “just in time” to finance World War I. The New York Times announced the Fed would be operational on August 1, 1914. We went to war with Germany on August 4, 1914. (Just a coincidence! Nothing to worry about.)

At the same time Paul Warburg’s brothers Max and Fritz were providing banking services to the German government, and not just any old banking services!

“The 1920 Schiff obituary revealed for the first time that Jacob Schiff, like the Warburgs, also had two brothers in Germany during World War I, Philip and Ludwig Schiff, of Frankfurt-on-Main, who also were active as bankers to the German Government! This was not a circumstance to be taken lightly, as on neither side of the Atlantic were the said bankers obscure individuals who had no influence in the conduct of the war. On the contrary, the Kuhn, Loeb partners held the highest governmental posts in the United States during World War I, while in Germany, Max and Fritz Warburg, and Philip and Ludwig Schiff, moved in the highest councils of Government. According to the Memoirs of Max Warburg, “The Kaiser thumped the table violently and shouted, ‘Must you always be right?’ but then listened carefully to Max’s view on financial matters.”[19]

During the war, Paul Warburg sought to “reassure” President Woodrow Wilson as follows: “I have two brothers in Germany who are bankers. They naturally now serve their country to their utmost ability, as I serve mine.”[20]

That’s so good to know, Paul! It really is! Nobody here but us patriots, right?

I wonder if Paul bothered to tell Woodrow that Brother Max, the director of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg, was the Kaiser’s principal financial advisor (and also the head of the German secret service and espionage system) during World War I, a war in which Brother Paul headed the American central bank.

I wonder if Brother Paul retained his partnership interest in M.M.Warburg. I wonder if he bothered to tell Woody that the principal stockholders in the Reichsbank, the central bank of Germany, were the Warburg and Rothschild banking houses!

Five years later, in June of 1919, Paul and Max would represent “their” countries at Versailles to negotiate the (peace) Treaty of Paris! What a surprise when they bumped into each other at the conference table, eh? Did they have this game wired or what!

They say if you like sausage and law, it’s best not to see either being made.

I guess that applies to central banks, too. They say that the Fed was the highest expression of the natural evolution of the art and science of banking. They lie!!

The creation of the Federal Reserve System was a highjack of the American economy. [21]


America’s Secret Government

There is not a truth existing which I fear

or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”

-- Lord Acton

The Federal Reserve was not only a coup d’état of the American economy, it was a coup d’état of American free enterprise, heralding the birth of the corporate state.

In a classical free enterprise economy, the state is like a referee in a sporting event. His role is to create and enforce the rules of a game in which he is not a player and in which he does not favor a player.

However, the Federal Reserve Act was the death of American free enterprise at the national level. The government abdicated its role as an impartial referee by surrendering its monetary power to a private and unelected financial elite. Since 1913, our government, largely at the direction of the rulers of the Federal Reserve, has legitimized and enforced monopolies in every sector of the American economy.

“The Rockefeller biological (and stockholder) strain has intermingled in an almost unbroken line through half of the nation’s wealthiest sixty families and back again. Throughout it all, the aggregate is solidly controlled, economically at least, by the one family that constitutes the descendants of John D. Rockefeller the First.[22]

One percent of the population owns more than 70% of the nation’s productive property, and 10% own all of it. About half of this in turn is held in trust by the ten leading Wall Street banks, which, in turn, are heavily influenced, if not controlled outright, by a group so small that they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, stated in plain English, represents the greatest and most intense concentration of wealth and power that the world has ever seen.”[23]

A cartel of powerful individuals and companies has gained control of America’s money. Since money is the life blood of an economy, over the last hundred years this cartel has extended its control to include the larger and more important features of the American economy. The extent of that control is not total, but it is vast.

In the Shadows

Historically, control depends largely on secrecy, and the Federal Reserve is no exception.

The Fed refuses to be audited like other banks, and its meetings are not transcribed or open to the public. Minutes are announced after the fact, but there is no way of knowing how complete or accurate they are.

One is reminded of the movie Men In Black in which Agent J (Will Smith) asks Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) “What branch of government do we report to?” “None. They all ask too many questions.”

“It is little known, however, that there is a Federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional Committee knows of or can truly supervise its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody -- and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.” [24]

The Fed says that it is indeed audited every year, but certain functions such as transactions with foreign central banks and open market operations, are excluded from the GAO’s audit. What the hell is left for the GAO to audit, the light bill?

“Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.”[25]

Like the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve has become an economic Star Chamber, an English court famous for its secret and arbitrary functioning:

“Over the years, all early restraints on Fed activities or its issuing of credit have been lifted; indeed, since 1980, the Federal Reserve has enjoyed the absolute power to do literally anything it wants: to buy not only U.S. Government securities but any asset whatever, and to buy as many assets and to inflate credit as much as it pleases. There are no restraints left on the Federal Reserve. The Fed is the master of all it surveys.”[26]

“Master of all it surveys” does not exactly sound like what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding federalism or a self-limiting currency. Many argue that it’s just bad business to turn over a nation’s currency to a private profession which, for two hundred years, has earned a reputation for ruthlessness, greed and monopoly.

Look, I’m not a banker basher because no profession or special interest group is more or less trustworthy or tyrannical than any other.

Two Governments

The problem is the weakness of human nature. Absolute power will eventually corrupt almost any group of human beings if they’re not bound with the chains of law.

According to Milton Friedman,

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic - - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank . . .”[27]

The Fed claims that transparency might “rattle the financial markets.” Wouldn’t want that to happen, would we? Hell, they’ve been rattling financial markets for a hundred years! Seems I remember some rattling back in 2008.

The Fed also claims that transparency would jeopardize its independence. The Fed’s independence is the problem. The last thing we need is to grant independence to a special interest group which has control of America’s currency. According to Representative Wright Patman,

“In the United States today we have in effect two governments. We have the duly constituted Government . . . Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.” [28]

The Mystery of Banking

Shortly after making this statement, Patman was stripped of his chairmanship. He was “too old,” they said.

The greatest source of the Fed’s power is the ignorance of the American people. To repeat Henry Ford’s historic assessment,

“If the people ever understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning!”

But they don’t understand. There is nothing more boring or confusing in the whole cosmos than money and banking.

The great economist Murray Rothbard wrote a classic book whose title sums it up. It’s called The Mystery of Banking. Even economists don’t understand it. Sure, they understand the mechanics and organization of the system, but not its less obvious but more profound effects on economy and society. As noted economist John Maynard Keynes once said,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch (to corrupt the value of) the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” [29]

Nothing is more secret than the Federal Reserve. Trillions of dollars have been recently borrowed on our signature, but our handlers refuse to provide complete disclosure about who got the money, what they’re doing with it, and why that information isn’t being made available to the people - their own money! The American people are so gentle, forgiving and compliant.

“What a blessing for rulers that men do not think.”
- Adolf Hitler


[1] 1. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The London Connection (Staunton, Virginia: Bankers Research Institute, Jekyll Island Edition, 1991), p.2.
[2] 2. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed (Auburn Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1994) p. 92.
[3] 3. Ibid. at 125.
[4] 4. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of The Federal Reserve, The London Connection, (Staunton, Virginia: Bankers Research Institute, Jekyll Island Edition, 1991), p. 34.
[5] 5. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed, p.122. (emphasis added).
[6] 6. Ibid. at p. 124.
[7] 7. Ibid at p. 130. (emphasis added).
[8] 8. Ibid. at p. 133.
[9] 9. USA Today, Monday, January 17, 2000, p. B3. (emphasis added).
[10] 10. All definitions are taken from Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003).
[11] 11. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The London Connection , p.57.
[12] 12. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Resesrve (Westlake Village, CA, American Media, 1994), p.227.
[13] 13. Id.
[14] 14. John Reeves, The Rothschilds, as quoted in David Icke, And The Truth Shall Set You Free, (Isle of White: Bridge of Love Publications, 1995), p.43. (emphasis added)
[15] 15. George Conroy, December 16, 1912 issue of “Truth Magazine,” as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87 (emphasis added).
[16] 16. “Money Masters” (DVD) (emphasis added).
[17] 17. Ibid. at p. 159.
[18] 18. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan, An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990), p. 473.
[19] 19. Max Warburg, Memoirs of Max Warburg, Berlin, 1936, as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87. (emphasis added)
[20] 20. David Farrar, The Warburgs, as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87.
[21] 21. What a coincidence that brothers Paul and Max would be at the apex of both German and American banking during the world war and, subsequently, the greatest economic disasters both countries had ever known. In 1919 Max Warburg persuaded the German government to abandon the Goldmark in favor of the “Papiermark.”The Weimar Republic was the German government after World War I. The name “Weimar” then became synonymous with economic ruin through hyperinflation. Starvation became so widespread that “chunks of meat were butchered from the flanks of horses standing at rest in front of their wagons and were either sold or eaten on the spot. At length, with a loaf of bread costing billions of marks, the currency was again made redeemable in gold coin and instantly the stormy seas calmed.”
[22] 22. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p 332.
[23] 23. Ibid at 337 (emphasis added).
[24] 24. Murray Rothbard, The Case Against The Fed, p. 3.
[25] 25. Ibid at p. 5 (emphasis added).
[26] 26. Ibid at p. 133 (emphasis added).
[27] 27. Money Masters (DVD).
[28] 28. A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand, p. 174 (emphasis added)
[29] 29. Lynne Meredith, Vultures In Eagles Clothing, (Huntington Beach, California: Prosperity Publishers, 1994), p. 126. (emphasis added)

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Money

Brave New Money: Bitcoin: The New Gold?

A New Monetary System?

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

Brave New Money

The founding fathers’ primary goal was to create a decentralized society. They wanted to avoid giving too much power to the central (federal) government.

That’s why the Constitution declares that “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

As a result, during the nineteenth century monetary transactions were private, peer-to-peer, and completely decentralized. No government agency or bank or other third-party recordkeeper was involved.

Today we have a completely centralized (and therefore spectacularly illegal) currency created and regulated by the Federal Reserve and its co-conspirator, the United States Treasury.

The states have lost their way. They have become administrative units of the federal government, like counties are to a state. Not only does no state mandate gold and silver coin as legal tender, all of them prohibit the use of gold and silver as legal tender.

It gets even worse. The Constitution declares that “No State … shall emit Bills of Credit.” Federal Reserve Notes (the money in your pocket) are bills of credit. Therefore, America has a national currency specifically outlawed by the Constitution.

As a result, the dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since the Fed was created in 1913, and America has an unpayable National Debt (which doubled in the Obama administration) totaling 21 trillion dollars.

The only way to right the financial ship of state is to create a wall of separation between money and government. In other words, get the federal government and its banking system the hell out of the money business. Return America’s money to the People.
OK, that’s fine, but what form of money would be best? A quick answer is “Gold, of course!”

But is gold the right answer?
Gold is great. However, there are some new monetary kids on the block -- cryptocurrencies -- which have a lot in common with gold. A cryptocurrency is digital cash -- computer-generated money. Bitcoin is the most successful and widely known cryptocurrency. It has the best chance of succeeding as America’s money because of the following:

1) Just like gold, Bitcoin transactions are completely private, decentralized and peer-to-peer. No bank or other third party is necessary for verification or record keeping. Again, all money, no bank.

2) Just like gold, Bitcoin can’t be inflated. It is not possible to create more than 21 million Bitcoins.

3) Just like gold, Bitcoin can’t be hacked, counterfeited or double-spent. Encryption techniques in Bitcoin’s algorithm completely control how the coins are created and used, and all transactions are verifiable by computer systems all over the world.

4) Unlike gold, Bitcoin is convenient. Gold is inconvenient. Who wants to lug around super-expensive rocks? If you are savvy enough to send an email or swipe a credit card, you can buy something with Bitcoin. It’s that easy.

5) Bitcoin has been a better investment than gold -- which has been a great investment in its own right. Since 1971 gold has increased in value approximately 3500% (versus 2100% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average). Bitcoin’s price has skyrocketed from one dollar in 2009 to $6500 today (10/1//2018), an increase of 724,000%. Even with Bitcoin’s “crash” from $19,000 in December 2017 it has increased in value about $700% over the past 18 months.

6) Unlike gold, Bitcoin is volatile. It is experiencing the uncertainty that attends emerging technologies and asset classes. Remember the jaw-dropping volatility of Apple, Google and Amazon in the 1990s? Backing bitcoins with a familiar, established and stable commodity like gold would provide price stability until cryptocurrencies gained wider acceptance.

The rise of Bitcoin is the most important development in the history of money since the use of gold became widespread thousands of years ago. However, in order to understand and properly evaluate Bitcoin, one must have a good basic understanding of the monetary system it seeks to replace. The remainder of this chapter will provide that perspective.

Monetary Dynamite

“The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea.  I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question.  The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong and that the wrong somehow centers in money.”[1]  --   Thomas Edison

What?  There’s a “money question”?

What’s wrong with our money?  Maybe Thomas Jefferson knows.  He tells us:

Specie [gold and silver coin] is the perfect medium because it will preserve its own level, because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands.[2]

Edison and Jefferson were arguing against a form of paper money (like the money in your pocket) which is not backed/not redeemable by anything of intrinsic and stable value, and which is dying in our hands.

Yeah, I know how strong the dollar has been in the past few years, but you have to look at the big picture.

Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (in large part to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar), the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 97%.  That trend will not be reversed -- until Bigfoot rides a unicorn down Broadway.

You could buy a dozen eggs for 6 cents in 1900, but today they’ll cost you $2.00. Today’s $100,000 house could have been bought for $3000 back then.

Gold has performed much better than the dollar.  An ounce of gold was worth $18.96 in 1900.  Today it’s worth $1309.00, an increase of over 6900%.  In stock market language, that’s a “69-bagger.”

That is why J.P. Morgan, the best known banker in American history, famously proclaimed that

      “Money is gold and nothing else!”[3]

Why would he say that?   The conventional wisdom today is that gold, an eighteenth century relic, has little value as money.

However, at the lower right hand corner of your CNB and Fox Business television screens, a notice appears every 20 seconds announcing the … price of gold.

Why do they do that?  Alan knows why.

Alan Greenspan, a legendary banker in his own right, said (in November of 2014) that “gold is a currency.  It is still, by all evidence, the premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.”[4]

Why would he say that?  Because money is gold and nothing else!  When some other form of money comes along that works better, let me know.  I’ll be impressed.

The proof is in the pudding.  Our debt-based and inflationary money and banking system is destroying our currency.  The U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.  Ironically, the Fed was created largely to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar!

Meanwhile gold has appreciated over 1700% since 1913.  The dollar is down 97%, and gold is up 1700%.  Do the math.  Get back to me.

Inflation Is Theft

Alan Greenspan is an honorable man.  For a long while I didn’t believe that.  When he became chairman of the Federal Reserve he relegated gold to the back of the bus.  Since his retirement his real views on gold have resurfaced.  Those views were first made known by Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which she included the following quote from Greenspan.  Forgive the length of the quote, but it is rich.

“In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.  There is no safe store of value.  If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done [when the public’s gold was confiscated in 1933] . . .

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold.  Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.

Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.  It stands as a protector of property rights.  If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

Gold and economic freedom are inseparable.”

That is why the founding fathers enacted Section 9 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that:

“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver  Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Today, however, no state makes gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts, and every state uses a paper currency in a form which the Constitution specifically forbids (bills of credit – those Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket).

The problem is not paper money per se.  America has always had paper money, but not paper money which is not (at least partially) redeemable in gold and silver coin.

According to the Supreme Law of the Land, you must be able to exchange your paper money for gold or silver any time you want.  And you can’t.

The founders intended to prevent the government from creating more paper than it has gold and silver.  They wanted to prevent the kind of inflation that ruined the currency issued by the Continental Congress (before the Constitution was enacted).  Remember the old expression “not worth a Continental?”

The advantage of legal money (gold and silver) is 1) that it is money in the hands of the People, not in a Federal Reserve-controlled bank, and, 2) "it can never die in our hands” through inflation, and 3) it’s legal.

Gold and the New International Monetary System

I know, I know.  Gold has lost its luster over the last few years.  It has shed more than a third of its value (in dollars) since 2011, but you have to look at the big picture.  The central banks and governments of the world certainly do.  Even while they bad- mouth gold, they are scrambling to buy as much of it as possible.

China, India and Russia act like Dyson vacuum cleaners around gold.  It’s easier for the sun to sneak by a rooster than for an ounce of gold to make it past Vladimir Putin.

Also, consider the almost daily news that many countries of all sizes and stripes (notably Germany, Venezuela, Switzerland, Mexico and the Netherlands) are desperately trying to repatriate their gold from foreign depositories.

Why? Because most countries recognize that the major economies and currencies of the world are extremely unstable.  For example, the recent crash (50% decline) in the price of oil is wrecking the economies and currencies of oil-producing nations.

Also, the world economy is on the verge of collapsing into a recession.  Many argue that we have been in a depression since 2008, but that fraudulent statistics and central bank money printing have just papered it over.

A stock market collapse could easily be precipitated by derivatives.  “The gross size of all bank derivatives positions now exceeds $650 trillion, more than 9 times global GDP.”[5]

Our economy is like a car which has square wheels.  The wheels are our destructive monetary system (an unbacked, debt-based fiat currency created by a fractional reserve banking system).   The rough ride is shaking the car to pieces by creating 1) more and more extreme booms and busts, 2) a stalled economy and 3) an unpayable National Debt.  This is not part of the original Master Plan for America’s money.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” - Vladimir Lenin

Money is gold because only gold maintains its value and preserves its purchasing power. The political and financial ruling class hates constitutional coin because it can’t be digitally created, destroyed, inflated, deflated or confiscated.

Gold and silver are money in the hands of the people, a state of affairs, which it is the purpose of the Federal Reserve to prevent.

In any case, we may not have to worry about our money much longer.  Our handlers are designing a new international monetary system in which the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency, and I would be stunned if it were not introduced before Barack Obama leaves the White House.

But I’m getting ahead of my story.

Why the Fed Desperately Tries to Create Inflation

 There is a global war between the forces of inflation and deflation.  The world’s central banks are trying to prevent market crashes by inflating their currencies.  In other words they are fighting deflation with inflation.

“The causes of declining confidence in the dollar are the dual specter of inflation and deflation, the perception on the part of many that the dollar is no longer a store of value but a lottery ticket, potentially worth far more, or far less, than face value for reasons beyond the holder’s control.[6]

A standoff in the battle between deflation and inflation does not mean that price stability prevails.  The opposing forces may have neutralized each other for the time being, but neither has gone away.  Collapsing growth in China and a reemergence of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe could give deflation the upper hand.  Conversely, a war in the Middle East followed by a commodity price shock, surging oil prices, and panicked gold buying could cause dollar dumping and an inflationary groundswell that the Fed would be unable to contain.  Either extreme is possible.”[7]

The Federal Reserve has pumped more than $3 trillion into the economy over the last few years in order to create an (alleged) annual rate of inflation of 2-3%.

1) Inflation makes it easier for the government to pay its debts, notably the National Debt, now in excess of $18 trillion.  Three per cent inflation will cut in half the real cost of (and the burden of paying) the National Debt every 20 years.

“Deflation increases the real value of government debt, making it harder to repay.  If deflation is not reversed, there will be an outright default on the national debt, rather than the less traumatic outcome of default-by-inflation.  Deflation slows nominal GDP growth, while nominal debt rises every year due to budget deficits.  This tends to increase the debt-to-GDP ratio [now approximately 105%], placing the United States on the same path as Greece and making a sovereign debt crisis more likely.”[8]

The FED fears deflation because deflation increases strengthens the dollar, which in turn makes it more expensive to borrow more of them. If it’s easier for the government to pay the interest on our National Debt, it is less urgent for spending to be restrained and for the National Debt to be limited.

2) Also, deflation increases the burden of servicing private debt, resulting in defaults on loans and a blizzard of bankruptcies.

“These losses then fall on the banks, causing a banking crisis.  Since the primary mandate of the Federal Reserve is to prop up the banking system, deflation must be avoided because it induces bad debts that threaten bank solvency.”[9]

3) Once deflation gains momentum, it is nearly impossible for the Fed to reverse.  Rickards maintains that if it gets out of hand,

“the only way to break deflation is for the United States to declare by executive order that gold’s price is, say, $7,000 per ounce, possibly higher.”[10]

Rickards predicts this would inflate the price of everything else, e.g., $400 per barrel oil and $100 per ounce silver.

So, strangely, both runaway inflation and runaway deflation will result in a skyrocketing gold price, and will probably have the same effect on the price of gold.

The Fed has been fighting the forces of deflation unleashed by the recent Great Recession by pumping more than $3 trillion into the economy.  It is unclear whether a depression or hyperinflation will ensue, but one thing is very clear – the dollar and the international monetary system (which is based on the dollar) will collapse, not for economic but for political reasons.

Inflation is unexpectedly   partly because the banks aren’t lending. Interest rates are so low that it’s safer and more profitable for them to leave their money with the Federal Reserve. The economic stimulus programs benefit only the financial elite.

The “Consumer Spending” Scam

Also, inflation remains low because Americans aren’t spending much of what they have.  The government says it’s trying to increase consumer spending to support both inflation and economic growth.  Bullroar!

If the government were serious about increasing consumer spending, it could have given the People a small portion of what it routinely steals or squanders.

For example, instead of spending $650 million on an Obamacare website that doesn’t work, Obama could have just given that money to the American people.  That’s two million thirty-one thousand two hundred and fifty-one dollars for each and every man, woman and child in the US! 

The same goes for Obama’s $550 million “investment” in Solyndra, the solar company that went belly-up.  If the money had simply been given to the People, every human being in the U.S. would have received a check for one million, seven hundred eighteen thousand and seventy five dollars.

Consumer spending would have skyrocketed, driving a stake in the heart of deflation and ending the ongoing Great Recession.

However, such a gift would have made the People independently wealthy, a worst case scenario from a tyrant’s perspective.  Obama would rather piss the money away than empower the populace.

Instead, the top five banks, whose combined assets equal the entire annual economic output of the entire country (over $17 trillion), just got a little fatter.

(By the way, the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to be in the “investment” business.  Can you think of a more inept or corrupt investor?)


 Money As A Weapon

The war between inflation and deflation is occurring in a political context.  Barack Obama and the Global Left want a weaker America.

Let’s do the math.  Behind door #1 is deflation.  Deflation strengthens both the dollar and America.  Behind door #2 is inflation.  Inflation weakens the dollar and America.  Gee, which door is an America-hating dirtbag going to open?

The central banks of the world and their lapdog governments want to weaken and downsize America so that she will be easier to control and will fit more easily into a world government with a globally unified economy.

The best way to accomplish this monetarily is to create a weaker dollar, i.e., to create inflation.  Market collapses and depressions are deflationary, and deflation strengthens the dollar and its position as the world’s reserve currency.

Most of the nations of the world are trying to destroy the dollar reserve currency status because they perceive America as an imperial power.  They (and America’s own leaders) are only too happy to bring her down a few notches.

The major countries are trying to protect themselves from the coming collapse of the dollar, because that will destroy the international monetary system, whose foundation is … the dollar.

They are protecting themselves by creating regional governments with regional currencies.  The European Union’s euro and the Russian Federation’s ruble are recent examples.

The United States of Islam?

Another such regional government is being created in the Middle East.  Obama is doing his part by aiding and abetting terrorist “freedom fighters” (like the Islamic Brotherhood, the Taliban, Iran, Hamas, ISIS, etc.) In other words, he’s helping them to create a Muslim Caliphate.

Terrorism is financed by nations with very deep pockets, like Saudi Arabia, a very dubious “ally” of the U.S. (16 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi).

The Saudis and their friends are now trying to create a regional currency with Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Jordan (collectively called the Gulf Cooperation Council – the GCC).  I would not be surprised to see membership eventually extended to the newly created Islamic State (ISIS).

The GCC is even considering pricing their oil exports in its own currency.  This would greatly reduce the demand for dollars as a means of payment in international transactions, resulting in tremendous inflation in the United States.

Even more likely is an alliance between Russia, Syria and Iran which could dictate terms to Saudi Arabia regarding the above mentioned Caliphate and the nature of its currency.

(I was surprised to learn that the Koran regards only gold and silver as legal money.)

The United States of North America?

May I also call your attention to attempts to create a regional government and currency in our neck of the woods?

The commotion on our Southern border is in part a smoke screen for the possible creation of the United States of North America, a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada into an American Union, with its own currency, the “amero.”

As always, standing in the way of any union is the American gorilla.  The main challenge for the elite has been to weaken the United States so that she can be easily absorbed into a larger collective.

However, America’s Achilles heel may be her money.  The dollar has been largely destroyed by de-linking it from gold and silver, resulting in a hundred year program of continual inflation.  Its recent strength (seen in plunging oil and gold prices) is transitory.

The weakness of a currency can be seen in the ratio of its national debt (ours is $19 trillion) to its GDP (ours is 17.6 trillion) … 104%.

Actually, the total U.S. debt (including unfunded liabilities) is 61.2 trillion.  Therefore the ratio is 347%.

Some argue that the destruction of the dollar is yet another example of Problem-Reaction-Solution.  A problem is created (the prospect of a dollar collapse) which gets the usual reaction (“Something must be done!”) and the social engineers then pose the solution for which they created the problem in the first place – a currency switch.

“While the immediate reaction of most Americans would be that the idea is preposterous, as we learned in 9/11, unanticipated crises can cause otherwise unimaginable changes in national policy.  A severe financial crisis, such as the impending devaluation of the dollar, could serve as a catalyst to make the amero a more acceptable idea.  If the alternative were to continue with the dramatically declining dollar or to move to a new currency that would compete strongly in world markets, Americans may be surprisingly ready to accept the amero.” [11]

Perhaps the greatest immediate danger to the dollar lies in the board rooms of foreign central banks and finance ministers.  The dollar now makes up about two-thirds of the reserve currencies of the world’s central banks.  These banks (mainly China and Japan) also hold about half of our National Debt.

The North American Union movement is an entire covert industry, sanctioned and supported by rogue elements within our own government, financed by multinational corporations and committed to the destruction of American sovereignty.

This movement has its counterparts in the African and Asian Union movements, each with its own currency, the afro (I kid you not) and the asio.

Until his recent death, the proposed leader of the African Union was Mohammar Gadhaffi!  You can see that these currency schemes are strictly top drawer.

You will be amazed how many monetary union movements there are in the world.  Just Google the key words.  Start with, say, “South American monetary union,” or “Middle Eastern monetary union.”  Pick any region of the world.

The movement to admit Puerto Rico as our 51st state may be a prelude to an American Union.  Puerto Rico statehood would make America more receptive to the admission of other Latin nations.  “Hey, how about Mexico?

[The remainder of this article is under construction.]



  1. Roger S. Sayles, From Sovereign To Serf, Government By The Treachery and Deception of Words195.
  2. Andrew M. Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 2009), p. 551-2.
  3. As quoted by James G. Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, Penguin, 2014) p. 220.
  4. Tyler Durden,, November 7, 2014.
  5. Rickards, The Death of Money, p. 11
  6. Ibid at p. 256
  7. Ibid at p. 249.
  8. James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),
  9. Id.
  10. Rickards, The Death of Money, p. 10.
  11. James R. Corsi, The Late, Great USA, James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),  9..
  12. James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),  279.

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Money