Vern Humphrey
Member
How about that FBI raid over a measely $100K? Can you say "chump change"?
Can you say, "Only a chump would defend corruption in a congressman -- and then complain about how the government was run?"
How about that FBI raid over a measely $100K? Can you say "chump change"?
He might be suggesting that a lot of them never get investigated at all, because they play along and don't make waves.Can you say, "Only a chump would defend corruption in a congressman -- and then complain about how the government was run?"
So you approve of Congressmen taking bribes, as long as it's only $100K?
Are Hill and Billary hiding under every bed?
Here is PriceWaterhouseCoopers' report on its 2005 audit of the Federal Reserve, which clearly answers (and refutes) the question of "Why has there never been an audit of the "Federal" Reserve Bank?"
Maybe it is "Not very convincing to outsiders to audit your own stuff" if you are unaware that it is standard practice (particularly given the legal requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) for all large corporations to have independent internal auditors to watch the business fulltime.
Of course, the above means little "in light of the fact that this unconstitutional system has been in place since 1913." Unless someone can cite a supporting Supreme Court decision, that would be a personal opinion.
gc70,
The holes are written in plain english, on their website you cited, on the opening page. It really has nothing to do with my level of expertise in actually conducting audits.
Having some other private corporations overseeing it within their limted scope inspires no confidence. Having spent a good deal of time working for some large corporations with some government overlap, I have seen this public-private interface firsthand.
And the bottom line is this; Congress had no assigned power to delegate such a task to a private bank in the first place. Mixing the public purse with the interests of a private bank was a crime - and has assured our economic slavery. As in the 1930s, we will be seeing the fruits of this folly which are just over the horizon.
If the Federal Reserve had a "complete audit" of its transactions, it would ONLY involve individually inspecting:by LAK:
Rather selective to say the least, and a long way short of a complete audit.
The gold that the Federal Reserve holds for the US government is clearly listed in the Fed's financial statements. As to gold held in safekeeping for other countries:by LAK:
Interesting; and where can we all see how much actual gold is actually currently held?
And before you have a revelation about the fact that the identify of account holders is strictly confidential, consider whether you would want your bank to publish a list of the things you keep in your safety deposit box.In addition to holding U.S. dollar-denominated assets, the New York Fed provides vault facilities to international official institutions for the deposit and safekeeping of gold, and releases gold upon request by a customer. The Bank keeps the identity of all account holders strictly confidential. The Bank charges account holders fees to move gold, either when transferring gold from one account to another or when releasing it to a customer.
The New York Fed's gold vault stores approximately $63 billion of monetary gold at $300 per troy ounce. The vault is the largest concentration of monetary gold in the world, constituting one-quarter of the world's official gold supply.
I am still waiting for someone to answer my question about almost virtually every president, whether Democrat or Republican, along with almost the entire membership of their advisory staffs, being members of the CFR since its founding. Vern, that means you.
Not unlike the UN, they don't do much anymore to keep their ideas, plans, and actions secret. Verifiable and credible sources of quotes, minutes, essays, etc. produced from these members and org meetings are available on the net.
A wealth of damning evidence can be found on the above mentioned organizations' websites.
And they are quite open about where they want to take this. Some interesting and open-ended terminology here too...... to provide our people and our infrastructure with the highest possible common level of protection from terrorists and other criminal elements, as well as from the common threats of nature.
Say Vern Humphrey; what if they were all .... Catholic?For those of us who aren't conspiracy buffs, explain why being a member of the Council for Foreign Relations is so bad.