06 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessCan you explain it or not?
um, it's the starting point for the chart dude. Follow the dashed lines around to see how everyone is connected.
It's a little ungainly but you can do it if you take your time. Or, they list their government document sources if you prefer to go there.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't understand where your difficulty is. Maybe i don't know what you are asking. The introductory paragraph makes it clear what the chart is showing you. I'm not going to try to trace it all out in words...that'd be nuts!
Can you explain it or not?
The chart tries to show the purported connections of the fed/regional banks.
Unless you are asking WHO N. Rothschild is? I doubt that though. You can look him up in google if you don't.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf anyone is interested in a list of what the GAO is not allowed to audit you can see a photo of a Letter to Ted Stevens (1981) from the GAO on this link.
This link contains a letter from the GAO listing what they are not allowed to audit. I tried to copy and paste the info but was unable to. It is near the beginning so it is easy to read.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6320565/Federal-Reserve-Audit
It is not clear when Barry Goldwater made the quote that the accounts of the FED had not been audited. If I knew the year it would be easier to determine if that statement was accurate at that time.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6320565/Federal-Reserve-Audit
Here is a link regarding H.R. 1207
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessI know who he is. But I'd like to know what that quote means.
I don't understand where your difficulty is. Maybe i don't know what you are asking. The introductory paragraph makes it clear what the chart is showing you. I'm not going to try to trace it all out in words...that'd be nuts!
The chart tries to show the purported connections of the fed/regional banks.
Unless you are asking WHO N. Rothschild is? I doubt that though. You can look him up in google if you don't.
It's simple, right? Then tell me. I'm not asking for the whole thing.
06 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI think you already know what it means and are trying to get something out of me.
I know who he is. But I'd like to know what that quote means.
It's simple, right? Then tell me. I'm not asking for the whole thing.
I asked for you to explain it to ME and Kmax, not for me to explain it to YOU.
Trying to find reliable info about who is connected to the Fed, as you know, is very difficult. It is the main thrust of people like Ron Paul who are trying to get an audit done on the Fed. Curiously, the Fed keeps refusing.
Now, the chart attempts to remove the cloak. You can either contribute your thoughts on the validity of the charts or not. I leave it to you.
06 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI looked at it, and realized they don't even say what the first line means beyond the fact that this apparently implies a "connection". Am I supposed to guess what a "connection" is exactly in this context? Don't you think that specifying what the "connections" are is relevant?
I think you already know what it means and are trying to get something out of me.
I asked for you to explain it to ME and Kmax, not for me to explain it to YOU.
Trying to find reliable info about who is connected to the Fed, as you know, is very difficult. It is the main thrust of people like Ron Paul who are trying to get an audit done on the Fed. C ...[text shortened]... ou can either contribute your thoughts on the validity of the charts or not. I leave it to you.
I googled their source and all I find are conspiracy theorist sites citing it. Can you find it for me?
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by Palynkano. Some of those sites are blocked by the work firewall..."access denied" etc.
I looked at it, and realized they don't even say what the first line means beyond the fact that this apparently implies a "connection". Am I supposed to guess what a "connection" is exactly in this context? Don't you think that specifying what the "connections" are is relevant?
I googled their source and all I find are conspiracy theorist sites citing it. Can you find it for me?
Oh well.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm interested to see where Paul gets with this. Not sure how many friends he has in the Senate but if he can get it through Congress and build the momentum he might be able to force the senate to approve some version of it.
Here is a link regarding H.R. 1207
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
I think this will be a major story in the coming months if it gets out of congress. good luck RP!
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessI imagine that if he did get it passed the results would be incredibly anti-climatic.
I'm interested to see where Paul gets with this. Not sure how many friends he has in the Senate but if he can get it through Congress and build the momentum he might be able to force the senate to approve some version of it.
I think this will be a major story in the coming months if it gets out of congress. good luck RP!
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionThen why is the fed so dead set against having an audit? If it's no big deal, then why hide from it?
I imagine that if he did get it passed the results would be incredibly anti-climatic.
If there was nothing to it, you'd think they'd gladly welcome this if only to disprove the accusations.
I don't see what is gained by continuous non-disclosure
07 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI don't know the ins and out of our laws, in particular the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Some one like no1 knows a lot more.
Then why is the fed so dead set against having an audit? If it's no big deal, then why hide from it?
If there was nothing to it, you'd think they'd gladly welcome this if only to disprove the accusations.
I don't see what is gained by continuous non-disclosure
This link at the fed gives a nice run down of the exemptions listed in FOIA as well as examples of how the fed has used any applicable exemptions.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/exemptions.cfm
Some of exemptions are easily justified (e.g., national defense, health records, security procedures). The few that would get the MM types excited are probably the following:
Trade secrets; commercial or financial information Any matter that is a trade secret or that constitutes commercial or financial information obtained from a person and that is privileged or confidential. In the context of requests for applications and application-related materials, the exempt information often includes business plans, pro forma financial information, nonpublic portions of transactional agreements, and descriptions of due diligence procedures and findings. Other information, such as copies of individual loan files obtained during an examination, and voluntarily submitted proprietary information, may fall within the scope of this exemption.
(5) Inter- or intra-agency memorandums. Information contained in inter- or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party (other than an agency) in litigation with an agency. Information the Board has withheld under this exemption includes staff analyses and recommendations and inter-agency or intra-agency communications on proposals.
Both of those seem pretty innocuous to me, but I'd concede to a lawyer exactly what it all means and how it is typically used.
My impression though is that there are two reasons why the Fed might not greet a complete audit (stripping away of the FOIA protections) that Ron Paul advocates.
1) The Fed has very seedy dealings with the descendants of long dead billionaires. If the government found out the Fed was duping the country to make itself rich they would surely sack the whole thing.
or
2) There's nothing out of the ordinary going on and the exemptions from the FOIA are for reasonable things and the Fed doesn't want to compromise them. Basically, they're none of Ron Paul's or the general publics business (like the security procedures or employee health records). It's akin to when libraries balked at the Bush administrations efforts to seize individuals book reading records. It's not that they were covering for huge terrorist plot, it just that the rules protecting those records were in place for a reason and libraries weren't going to give them up easily.
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionthis is the info he is looking for.
I don't know the ins and out of our laws, in particular the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Some one like no1 knows a lot more.
This link at the fed gives a nice run down of the exemptions listed in FOIA as well as examples of how the fed has used any applicable exemptions.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/exemptions.cfm
Some ...[text shortened]... records were in place for a reason and libraries weren't going to give them up easily.
07 Apr 09
3 edits
On the issue of foreign transactions, the Fed does coordinate with other central banks. After all, a very large fraction of the US currency is held overseas
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20070301/cover.pdf). so US monetary doesn't just affect our economy.
I do not know why that information isn't available to the public (at least after some years). It might have to do with international law. It may be a matter of managing expectations about policy. As tempting as it may be to believe that the Fed is working to secretly undermine the US for the private profit of a few elites, I think that is pretty far-fetched.
Perhaps you or some one else wouldn't mind listing all the things Ron Paul said he wanted made public. I really can't remember them all with Ron's six minute rambling and nonsense. I thought Bernanke did a very good job of sifting through it and delivering a succinct and direct response.
07 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI asked for you to explain it to ME and Kmax, not for me to explain it to YOU.
I think you already know what it means and are trying to get something out of me.
I asked for you to explain it to ME and Kmax, not for me to explain it to YOU.
Trying to find reliable info about who is connected to the Fed, as you know, is very difficult. It is the main thrust of people like Ron Paul who are trying to get an audit done on the Fed. C ...[text shortened]... ou can either contribute your thoughts on the validity of the charts or not. I leave it to you.
Now you're just being disingenuous. You asked Palynka to lend his thoughts concerning how far removed from private interests the Fed is given the so-called connections in your chart(s). Yet, when Palynka asks for clarification on what sorts of connections are actually being claimed in the charts (something which is supposedly "given" in the context of your inquiry), you can offer no substance. If you cannot tell us what sorts of connections are being claimed in your charts, then you probably shouldn't pose questions where such things and information are taken to be "given". When you further go on to pretend like this is a failing on Palynka's part, that makes you disingenuous.
I honestly find the chart(s) very confusing. I don't understand what "connections" that page is trying to establish, and I find the leading paragraph(s) to be explanatorily inadequate in this regard. Relatedly, I don't understand how one is supposed to glean something material from that particular page concerning the degree to which the Fed is removed from private interests.
Can you explain the "connections" to us? Or else get some better source material for consideration?