Posted on 02/28/2016 7:19:08 PM PST by pboyington
What I am showing you (the one who said that Kennedy and the Fed did not have any reason for a beef), is that there was a reason for enmity between the Fed and Kennedy.
If you can’t determine that this is potential motive, there is no hope for you.
It’s not proof the Fed was involved, but as in any investigation, the FIRST thing you do is look at what parties benefit from the death.
Is it your supposition that the Fed had no reason for concern given EO 11110 and the printing of notes that did not allow the Fed to make their rediscount rate?
I await an cogent, reasonable answer to a reasonable question.
I haven't seen any proof there was enmity.
Is it your supposition that the Fed had no reason for concern given EO 11110 and the printing of notes that did not allow the Fed to make their rediscount rate?
Why do you feel these other notes would impact the discount rate? Do you know what the Fed does with their earnings? If you do, why do you think they'd care if their earnings were reduced?
In your world, if a suspect gains from insurance money due to the death of a spouse, there’s no proof of enmity. Of course, MONEY is a motive.
As far as earnings of the Fed, think of all those high ranking Fed employees/owners - who would, if ALL the currency in the US were to be printed by the Treasury department as US Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, would therefor be out of work? Does not matter where the “earnings” or profit “goes”. What is the root of the issue is - if this situation were allowed to continue, and expand, what would have been the future for the Fed? Obsolescence.
Now, that being said, does not prove implication in the Kennedy murder, but it does put them into the group of people who had *something* to gain. It’s a big group of folks, too.
However, to state that the Fed had no concern RE: Kennedy is non-sensical. He was stepping on their toes.
In my world if you claim there was enmity, I'd like to see proof there was enmity.
Maybe some speeches where Kennedy criticized the Fed and then some sort of response from the Fed. Or is your only proof of enmity EO 11110?
As far as earnings of the Fed, think of all those high ranking Fed employees/owners
Yes, you should explain, separately, how those 2 groups would be impacted by the EO.
who would, if ALL the currency in the US were to be printed by the Treasury department as US Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, would therefor be out of work?
Wait, you think the EO had something to do with US notes?
Does not matter where the “earnings” or profit “goes”.
That sounds like you don't know where the profit goes. Can you tell me where it goes?
What is the root of the issue is - if this situation were allowed to continue, and expand, what would have been the future for the Fed?
Do you think somehow Federal Reserve Notes would have been discontinued?
Only Fed employees can refute your error-filled, conspiratorial nonsense?
You never answered my question.
I'm still waiting for you to post proof of enmity.
That's the only explanation I can come up with your constant side-tracking of a SIMPLE question
This one?
if ALL the currency in the US were to be printed by the Treasury department as US Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, would therefor be out of work?
No. US notes would not put the Fed out of business.
Did you ever figure out what the Fed does with their annual profit.
More importantly, why do you keep mentioning US Notes when EO 11110 had nothing to do with US Notes?
There's a myth that JFK was some kind of anti-Establishment maverick, but look at who he appointed to office: Harvard, Ford Motor Company, Wall Street.
Kennedy was Establishment to the core. All the more so since, as an Irish Catholic, he had to prove that he had arrived and truly belonged to the elite.
Is the Federal Reserve part of our government, or a private institution?
Can you answer that?
Have you or your family ever been in their employ?
You seem to ask a lot of questions but answer none, so I am taking a page from your book
Part of the government.
Have you or your family ever been in their employ?
No.
Does EO 11110 mention US Notes?
I voted for JFK, my first presidential vote!!He was not that great a president and I don’t think that he would have won re-election. By the way, that was the last time that I voted for a Democrat for president.....or much else other than locally (I knew the candidates).
Publishers clearing house probably paid him BIG....I am waiting now for my check to be delivered....I just gave them a prepaid debit card to cover the $500.00 fee for the crew to come to my door with T.V. cameras and everything!!!....eat your heart out!!
Still looking for US Notes in EO 11110?
Does not matter where the “earnings” or profit “goes”.
Still trying to find where the Fed's earnings go?
EO 11110 and printing of Federal Notes - vs Federal Reserve Notes IS a big difference. EO11110 was preparing for life after the Federal Reserve . It, coupled with the ability to issue directly Federal (Treasury) notes implied a future ability to dump the Federal Reserve in it’s entirety. If you don’t think it was a big deal, then why don’t we simply dissolve the Federal Reserve? If there is no difference between Federal notes vs Federal Reserve why do we have them?
If there are no profits, no money held anywhere, how then was 7.7 Trillion used to bail out US banks? http://theweek.com/articles/479867/federal-reserves-breathtaking-77-trillion-bank-bailout
If there are no profits, no money held, how do you lend foreign banks 9 Trillion dollars? Can the Fed even answer simple questions elected congressmen have about WHERE money went? https://youtu.be/n0NYBTkE1yQ
What was QE? QE2? If the Fed simply “prints” money at their pace, does not that in effect, lower the value of the dollar if they “ease” money? Does not that make imports more expensive?
The Fed was NOT the intent of the original founders.
Many people want a proper audit and oversight of the Fed, especially after their bailing out of foreign markets/banks.
If they are (as you and the Fed claim) a “part” of government, is it the scope of our government to have the decision made to bail out Europe without involving any oversight of Congress or the President?
Lastly, what if a Non-profit was spending lots of money on things other than it’s primary purpose? It would NOT show a profit, but would that mean we should no keep a eye on what they were spending?
What's the difference?
EO11110 was preparing for life after the Federal Reserve .
It had nothing to do with a supposed end to the Fed.
It, coupled with the ability to issue directly Federal (Treasury) notes implied a future ability to dump the Federal Reserve in it’s entirety.
It said nothing about issuing Treasury Notes.
If there are no profits,
Who said there were no profits?
I asked you what they did with their (huge!) profits.
The Fed was NOT the intent of the original founders.
One of the first things the Founders did was create a Central Bank in 1791.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
As a result, the First Bank of the United States (1791–1811) was chartered by Congress within the year and signed by George Washington soon after.
A 2010 article in Research magazine discussing various controversies surrounding the Federal Reserve stated that "the wildest accusation against the Fed is that it was involved in Kennedy's assassination."[17] Critics of the theory note that Kennedy called for and signed legislation phasing out Silver Certificates in favor of Federal Reserve Notes, thereby enhancing the power of the Federal Reserve; and that Executive Order 11110 was a technicality that only delegated existing presidential powers to the Secretary of the Treasury for administrative convenience during a period of transition.[17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
You may also notice that there is no mention of United States Notes in that "article" about EO 11110.
A 2010 article in Research magazine discussing various controversies surrounding the Federal Reserve stated that "the wildest accusation against the Fed is that it was involved in Kennedy's assassination."[17] Critics of the theory note that Kennedy called for and signed legislation phasing out Silver Certificates in favor of Federal Reserve Notes, thereby enhancing the power of the Federal Reserve; and that Executive Order 11110 was a technicality that only delegated existing presidential powers to the Secretary of the Treasury for administrative convenience during a period of transition.[17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
You may also notice that there is no mention of United States Notes in that "article" about EO 11110.
But what did the treasury DO with their direction from EO 11110?
They printed sliver backed notes, bearing the device of “United States Note” not “Federal Reserve Note”.
Take for example, any other EO, that for example mentions activities of border control. No, Obama’s wording of the EO did not specifically say “catch and release” but that’s the outflow of the order.
Just as people read between the lines, so does the government write between the lines.
They printed sliver backed notes, bearing the device of “United States Note” not “Federal Reserve Note”.
No, they did not say "United States Note", silver certificates said "Silver Certificate".
EO 11110 let them print more silver certificates, for a limited time, before they replaced them with $1 and $2 FRNs.
It was never about US Notes or eliminating the Fed or eliminating FRNs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.