Did The Federal Reserve Renew Their Charter That Ended 12/31/12? PIN FOR ANSWERS TO THIS MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF 2013!!

Excellent. You gave the right advice.

Unfortunately, most won't use it because the federal reserve with the help of CONgress has made it all to convenient and easy with a click on a keyboard and the swipe of a card to stay entangled in their web.

Anyone ever notice that "The IRS" really spells THEIRS?

Taxes are the penalty for using their paper. It's a massive Ponzi scheme and psyop

It's very confusing to sit down and really think about this, because if I decided to not be a part of the scheme, then I am alone.

The Federal Reserve has been the topic on conspiracy sights for a long time, and we all know what they are.. does that change anything? no, because to live, we are all trapped in this web of paper and oppression.

Is the Federal Reserve Act going to expire?

No. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913--which established the Federal Reserve as the central bank of the United States--has been amended or altered by the Congress numerous times over the years, but the act has never included an "expiration date" or repeal date. As stated in the law itself, the Federal Reserve Act can only be repealed, amended, or altered by the Congress.

[link to www.federalreserve.gov]

Dec 23rd, my bad.

Yeah, CONgress. Well, I guess that gives us our answer.. on we go with the deceit and destruction of the people.

Link?

because there are different dates, but most say 12/21/12 or 12/31/12

They exchange "Lawful" money for their "Legal" tender! Notice the play on words? There is a difference! Coin is lawful money, notes printed by the treasury are lawful money. The Federal Reserve is simply "Legal" tender and not necessarily lawful money, although the Supreme Court wrote that it can be used in the place of "Lawful" money.

Now pay attention here: The Federal Reserve has only $200 million in Lawful money at it's banks. If ALL Americans would visit their closest Federal Reserve bank on payday and demand exchange for Lawful money then they would not have enough to cover the exchange and would therefore default - basically putting itself out of business. This is written in their charter!

so by taking the unlawful money to a federal reserve bank and exchanging it for lawful money, will I then have "notes" or coins?

sorry, I guess I am confused.

Last Edited by Mia41 on 01/01/2013 12:24 PM

In the election of 1912, the Democratic Party won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The party's platform stated strong opposition "to the so called Aldrich bill for the establishment of a central bank." However, the platform also called for a systematic revision of banking laws in ways that would provide relief from financial panics, unemployment and business depression, and would protect the public from the "domination by what is known as the Money Trust."



Attorney Samuel Untermyer who headed the 1913 Pujo Money Trust Investigation Committee to investigate money trusts defined a money trust to George Baker during the Pujo hearings; "We define a money trust as an established identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance, which has been created and is held together through stock-holding, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which has resulted in vast and growing concentration and control of money and credits in the hands of a few men".

Wow, it's big.. really big, but controlled by a few men. When will we wake up?

We are afraid to revert back to the 1800's way of living because we have been brain washed and comforted with paper monopoly money.

I am willing to revert back to the old ways... Yes, we have forgotten how, but knowing that we must survive without our normal comforts will be the ONLY way to live.

The people will come together one day. I hope I am here to see it, but it's not looking too good.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter, does it? I already explained what you can do to take down the Fed Res. The rest is up to you! How are you going to organize it? That is your mission for 2013!

Great question, I can't seem to find anything either.

Pitchforks

Gold and Economic Freedom

by Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]

This article originally appeared in a newsletter: The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

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 in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. 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 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.

###

Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]

Untermyer was allegedly involved with the production of the Scofield Reference Bible - basically the book responsible for the modern Christian mindset.

Sorry to break the news but there is no renewable charter. Never has been. Only Congress can stop the FED and those 500 criminals won't be pulling a finger out of their ass anytime soon.

You're not alone in your thinking Mia...you're on the right track :)

Gold and silver coins minted by the treasury, coupled with the advice given by John in this thread is the solution...

5* and a

I have not bought anything on credit in eight years and haven't had a bank account of any kind for nearly four. It's somewhat inconvenient at times, but no big deal. Savings are in sliver/gold and other hard assets. The feeling of being liberated from the banks is well worth the minor inconveniences. For those of you who aren't ready to go bank-less, find a small local bank (there are a few left in every town). You will find that the service and treatment you receive are much better than at the big banks. Whatever you do, avoid the big four (B of A, Citi, Wells Fargo and, the worst of the worst, Chase.)

You're only trapped if you refuse to do anything about it!

Get on board with Max Keiser's "buy silver and crash JP Morgan" program. Sign up for Campaign for Liberty newsletters. They make it very easy to weigh in with your representatives on important issues - a couple of clicks and you send letters and sign petitions. TPTB want all of us to feel powerless. We are not powerless! There are a lot more of us than there are of them. We have political power and economic power! We only lose if we fail to use these.

Let's not roll over and play dead while these evil fuckers rape and pillage and destroy our nation and our future. Do SOMETHING!

I don't have any publishing software but I was wondering if anybody can make a $3 bill with Obama's picture on it? Anyone?

We may not need a run of the bank by the American people.

Nearly 98% of the gold at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by the central banks of foreign nations.

Germany wants two-thirds of their gold back from the US, 150 tons.

Math time.

The total value of all gold EVER mined would exceed US$10.1 trillion.

Current US debt= 16 trillion.

Any questions?

Thank you for the *'s!!

and thank you John for your thoughts.

Anyone got the Congressional Record for that 1927 act? Better to go to the Congressional Record than rely on the great Inter-web of dis-informational rumors.

Just for the record the Federal Reserver Notes (FRN) are also Printed by the U.S. Treasuries printing press. The FRS pays the U.S. Treasury to print the FRNs. Just like you use some Bank Note printing company to print your Checks on your bank checking account.

However, this 20-year corporate life was changed to perpetual in 1927 by Act of Feb. 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1234) as follows:

Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

This is codified in the United States Code, 12 U.S.C. § 341. See [link to www.law.cornell.edu]

And that Cornell link is dead, 404'ed.

Once can try this also: [link to www.law.cornell.edu]

The printing of the Notes is not the question. The US Treasury does not issue the FRN nor does it back them.

US Notes are and always have been issued by the Treasury and been backed, at a 1:1 ratio in gold or silver.

Federal reserve notes are not backed by anything but a BOND, issued by Congress on the goods and services of the US Citizens and the promise to pay the notes with said goods and services.

US Notes are still in circulation and you have them in your pocket right now.

"Demand is made for lawful money per 12 USC 411" above all your endorsement signatures is all that is required to end the presumption and assumption you are endorsing Federal Reserve debt.

John is mistaken that you can go to a Federal Reserve bank, they will NOT do business with the public at all, many have tried. Do your business at your local bank and demand your redemption per 12 USC 411.

There is a huge thread on this under "end the fed" many are doing and many more every day.

You're mostly right but some corrections are needed. The treasury does the printing but the treasury has to pay the Fed Res something like 4% interest on the face value of the note even though it costs the same to print a $1 bill and a $100 bill.
Here is where it gets tricky and it is a timely topic. There isn't $16 trillion in circulation! It's physically impossible to pay back this debt without printing more money which would put us further in debt. It cannot be unwound!

Simply put, this national debt is nothing but a charade to get more tax money out of us. The Federal Reserve owns the money so it is their debt to incur and not yours or mine.
To make it more clear, there is no debt that we owe the Federal Reserve since it is their currency. They could collect every Dollar in circulation and it still wouldn't amount to $16 trillion. How are we to pay on something that doesn't exist?

"... or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law."

So the drive to have a full audit of the FRS was in place because a full and complete audit of the FRS could in fact discover a violation of the law. Of course that full and complete audit would be from the start in 1914 to this very time. An extremely difficult prospect indeed. And one wonders about statutes of limits for fraud in this case.

Of course there have been Resolutions introduced into Congress every single year form 1914 to 2012 for the dissolution of the FRS. Every single year. Think about that.

The People from 1914 to 2012 have been calling for the dissolution of the FRS, that is many people's Great Grandparents, Grand Parents and Parent's generations an their own. So tell me, what is wrong with all the Senator's and House Representatives since 1914? The Majority of both the House and the Senate have been continuously corrupt.

Want to bet it is in the stimulus package.