Jump to content

The Fed & JFK


Metal_Jacket
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I know that the theory’s about what happen to JFK (assassination) and why are plenty, some say it was the Mafia, Russians, Cubans, CIA, FBI, I’m sure that we all would of came across some sort of theory at some stage within the 40+ years of what might of happened and why.

There is another theory that I have not heard of, it might be common knowledge to a lot of people, but to me it was new and fascinating, it all starts with the Fed, the U.S Federal Reserve Bank.

The Fed (U.S Federal Reserve Bank) job it to print money and control the economy,

But what surprised me was that the Fed was a privately owned company, it’s not owned by the American government, it’s owned by about 300 companies or families all over the world, England, Germany, France etc .

When the U.S. government needs money, such as if there is a war or some disaster happening, the Fed will print the money and charge interest to the U.S government for there inconvenience, the U.S. government then adds a tax to the U.S population to pay off the debt, a portion of every Americans income tax goes to the federal reserve to pay off the national debt.

The Fed is a tax free organization, it pays no money back to the U.S on its profits,

All profits are distributed to the share holders of the Fed, and no, you can not buy shares in the Fed, it also has its own internal auditing system and all meeting done by there board do not have to be disclosed to the public, wow what a scam.

June 4, 1963 JFK signed an Executive order No 11110 that returned the U.S government the power to issue currency, without going through the Fed reserve, the order gave the Treasury the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or silver dollars in the treasury.

This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money in circulation, in all JFK brought nearly 4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation.

With a stroke of a pen JFK was about to put the Fed bank out of business, because if enough of these silver certificates (the new U.S. dollar note) were to go in circulation it will eliminate the demand for the Fed Reserve note.

Why, because the silver certificates are backed by silver, and the Fed note is not backed by anything.

November 1963 JFK was assassinated, no more silver certificates were issued.

Executive order No 11110 was never repealed by any U.S. president and still is valid.

silverdollar1963.jpg

Above there is a silver certificate from 1963, note what it reads on the top of the note.

feddollar.jpg

Here is a fed note.

Edited by Metal_Jacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to check out "Freedom To Fascism" doc film, which relates to this in many ways (lowdown on the Federal Reserve Bank).

Sniff around on google video (top tip :thumbsup: )

Yes, JFK was basicly taking apart the CIA and what you state here. Those in control where not happy and ... goodbye JFK. Check out Daddy Bush/CIA ref JFK as there's many links in a long chain about this.

It's a shame you get the usual debunk from people regarding this, because if people just bothered to dig further they would getter a better idea of whats involved and its not that far to look either :( .

JFK knew the score & acted like a president for the people ... thats the thanks he got, but dont worry kids its a "conspiracy" .. back to sleep :whistle::) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this one is STILL circulating around Heh?

Well, it is true that the central bank DOES basically "run" the economy, but to say that the central banks of the world are "united" and "work together" is more than a bit far fetched.

People who essentially accept this belief are the same ones that watch the loose change video and believe that the only explanation for the increases of shorts on United stock is that insiders knew what was going to happen. These people OBVIOUSLY do not understand the markets, nor have they done their research. I have explained the reasons for the shorts on United stock more than once, so I won't bother going over them AGAIN.

The amount of strife between central banks in one nation to another nations central banks, is akin to war among nations. If the central banks had armies, there is no doubt that many would have wiped out their opposition by now.

Think about this, if the central banks of the world are really "working together" then why did the "war over gold" occur amongst them? Why would the central banks not support one another's activities within their own sovereign boundaries? Why do they constantly "pick" one another's pockets in the currency markets.

This is the same thing as people who claim Bin Laden all of a sudden "burst" out onto the political scene in the last decade, and that he is some how the "scape goat" for all current terrorist events. Some of you might be too young to remember, and some of you just might not have been paying attention, but for those of us who have been following what this guy has been saying, we know that Bin Laden was big news even before the first Gulf War.

I have talked to many conspiracy theorists and it is always the same. They talk about the Federal Reserve, but when you start questioning them about central bank activities, the conversation either goes flat, or it is quickly diverted in another direction.

Now could the US Federal Reserve have acted alone and targeted Kennedy? THAT would be a more plausible explanation, but all this talk about all the central banks of the world working together is 100% flat out false, and I can guarantee it. Again, I have yet to hear a conspiracy theorist offer any explanation in regard to the strife that exists among the central banks, and why they do the things that they do.

Oh, wait a minute, the Central banks are faking the emnity between one another to throw us off! Just like God planting the bones of dinosaurs to test our faith. :rolleyes:

Conspiracy theorists would do us all a favor if they could just focus on the "real stuff". Yes, the existence of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, yes, the IRS needs to go, but all of the "conspiracy stuff" is really nothing more than a distraction. I swear, that Federal Reserve has to be loving all of this conspiracy nonsense, because it really takes away the credibility from all of the true attacks that conspiracy theorists make on them.

Edited by jchung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to hear a conspiracy theorist offer any explanation in regard to the strife that exists among the central banks, and why they do the things that they do.

All families have an in-fight now and then.

Think about this, if the central banks of the world are really "working together" then why did the "war over gold" occur amongst them?

Put 2 power hungry & greedy people in a room regarding money and it wont take long before the cracks set in, they are all as bad as each other even if they are all are supposed to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

For example myself, yourself, Metal Jacket and more are looking into these areas mainly because we all know the corruption that exists. We are in fact pretty much coming from the same general point although maybe somewhat different directions, the roads pretty much lead into the same area after a while. Yet we have this thread with us debating each other and not agreeing all the time. Take this small example and imagine we are upper level folk in the financial game. We have the same interests but we dont all agree, that example used in an area of money & greed .. what can you realy expect.

Yes, the existence of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, yes, the IRS needs to go

Yep and JFK was on the case, but got killed for it. This is a conspiracy, but how can it be when its very clear & JFK wanted what you and many others wanted as they can see the corruption staring them in the face every day. Forget all conspracy blurb and you state the roots of all of it in that quote right there, isnt that enough to know?

I respect you have the financial aspect locked down with what you have looked into and know, so Im not questioning you on that at all. This still comes back to the fact it needs to go and those of a higher level and are involved who dont all agree with one another are still laughing there asses off every day with much larger pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are good points Calius, but there is a distinction between infighting and the goal of destroying your "enemy". If the French could have it their way, they would have run us into the ground, except that Nixon saved our country's gold. People only see Nixon pulling us off of the gold standard, but the reality was that we never were on the gold standard.

FDR was probably the most corrupt president in the history of the US. I won't go into all of his history, but one thing that did happen in his administration was that the price of gold was artificially fixed, and I say artificially, because money was still flying off of the presses. For those who don't know this, fixing the price of gold does not put one on the gold standard, only fixing every dollar in print to gold does this, so in essence you cannot print anymore money unless more gold is mined.

Anyway, France kept demanding gold for payment of debts, and other nations followed suit. Finally Nixon stepped in and stopped the bleeding. Had Nixon not done this, our country would literally be bankrupt today. As much as we say gold is not money, the fact is that gold is still the only money. Anyone that disputes this is clearly missing the facts. Gold has passed through every empire and nation of wealth, and one has to answer why China is the nation that is growing the most rapidly, and it is also the nation whose gold reserves are also rising at the most rapid pace.

Anyway, I don't want to get too sidetracked, but the fact of the matter is that Central banks are nothing new, even to this country. Remeber the Bank of America? Central banks have come and gone throughout history, and nations have come and gone, with some going bankrupt. Each country and fractional banking system are constantly at war with one another. This is not infighting, nations have disappeared, and central banks have disappeared on account of this.

Calius, I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you realise the degree to what you call "infighting" goes. What happens among nations and central banks is not infighting. When you run another country or fractional banking system into bankrupcy, or cause its demise or disappearance, this is not infighting.

I can see how it may look like infighting from the outside, but if you look into the history of gold, fiat currency, fractional banking, and nations, you will quickly realise that what you call infighting is actually all out war.

Now again, I can see how our own fractional banking system could have "called" for Kennedy's death, that theory is one that I would not dare say is 100% false, but to say that the fractional banks of the world are working together? I can assure you that this is 100% false.

Regardless of these facts, the US Federal Reserve acting on its own calling for Kennedy's death is an interesting one. Considering that the former Bank of America was dissolved, one has to really think that the current fractional banks probably did not want history repeating itself. Is it possible? :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calius, I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you realise the degree to what you call "infighting" goes.

True, though I did use lamens terms on that one just in response to "if they are working together why?".

so in essence you cannot print anymore money unless more gold is mined.

Very true, now its a case of numbers generated on a computer that you pay interest on & if not they take your home :wacko: from basicly out of thin air digits which is a complete insult, how they must laugh.

but to say that the fractional banks of the world are working together? I can assure you that this is 100% false.

We agree to differ here as I cant see they 100 percent dont. I see maybe its not as tight as its made out to be, but I wont go as far as an out & out impossibilty. I just look at the E.U as one example and the element of control being sucked together by this. I wont go there with the U.S (Amero arena) but it pretty much showing control is being centralised more and more, banks merging etc to say they 100 percent cannot work together is a place I cant go just by looking around day by day.

Regardless of these facts, the US Federal Reserve acting on its own calling for Kennedy's death is an interesting one.

Dont also forget that he wanted, and was calling for a break up of the intel agency's, coupled with the fed its not much more of a tipping point to see how it was going down.

Its more of a case that he wasnt going to be a puppet and was taking steps to remove things that were not good (that most people will agree were, and arent good by evidence of this thread alone) so he wasnt playing ball and fitting the plan. Take a look at Bush now .. you cant tell me he's not the A1 perfect un questioning front man, Kennedy knew the score, it wasnt liked.

Thinkers and questioners are great when your batting for the right team. Dare I utter the cliche "With us or against us" or decoded "my way or the highway" or - you dont bat for our team your out sunshine, its unquestioning robot speak.

I wont say Kennedy was perfect but his heart was in the right place for things we all agree are not helping us now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree to differ here as I cant see they 100 percent dont. I see maybe its not as tight as its made out to be, but I wont go as far as an out & out impossibilty. I just look at the E.U as one example and the element of control being sucked together by this. I wont go there with the U.S (Amero arena) but it pretty much showing control is being centralised more and more, banks merging etc to say they 100 percent cannot work together is a place I cant go just by looking around day by day.

I think you are looking at the E.U. on the surface only. Remember that the E.U. is not about unity, it is just a response to Dollar Diplomacy. Remember that term? Today it is called Dollar Hegonomy, so the E.U. is not as "unified" as you think. You really cannot call law suits being launched at by one nation to another, and some threatening to break away a unified front. There is MUCH more happening behind the scene. Understand that this was considered the lesser of two "evils" that many E.U. nations felt they had take in order to challenge the US dollar as a reserve currency.

Is it any wonder that with the strength of the British Pound those in England did not want to join? The strength of the Pound would have been diluted in the E.U., so it was a natural barrier to the British joining the E.U. I guarantee you that in the future if the strength of the Pound were to falter, then England will be right in line to join the E.U. The E.U. is about offering an alternative currency to the world, not about Europe's unity.

The thing that makes me doubt Kennedy's demise being a government conspiracy is the fact that Eisenhower was even more vociferous about the CIA than Kennedy was. I'm not saying that Kennedy absolutely could not have been taken out by conspirators, I'm am just saying that I have my doubts. I certainly believe that there could have been a conspiracy, I am just not 100% sold on it yet, and considering that fifteen years have gone by since I first heard this (I know that the theory itself is even older than that) and no new evidence has surfaced on it yet, I will wait until more "proof" is found before I am willing to jump on the bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The E.U. is about offering an alternative currency to the world, not about Europe's unity.

In that quote it reads to me and does from anyone (so im not just nit picking your point here) that yes, it is to offer one currency. In turn offering unity via this one currency and then in doing so you have less and less independant sovereign states, which you can then control from the top down much more easily. No its not unity in terms of helping anyone directly on the ground (although its packaged that way and there are a few benefits) and yes it is to make one currency ... but it IS to unify in order to control from one point.

So far the "conspracy" has been people talking of (globaly) 1 currency, 1 government, 1 religion, 1 global army. So at this stage its increasingly looking less and less far fetched, alot of things recently would have been viewed as a nutter rambling if they details whats here so far, but its is here, and if this is the trend (which it is as it hasnt stopped yet) then "conspriracy" as a word is getting weaker by the day.

I will wait until more "proof" is found before I am willing to jump on the bandwagon.

Fair enough I understand your point of wanting more proof. I come from the opposite angle, I assume its possible and has happened a certain way and see what proof filters through to completely justify the "offical line". As in, put both versions on the table and see which one's offical story looks less likely. So far the offical version of JFK is pretty laughable at best.

To call thinking in terms of he did get killed in a certain way as a bandwagon jump I thinks not the best way to word it or view it either. Jumping on the badwagon to me suggests running with the horses because its "cool" ... thats just cheap and tacky. I dont think you will get the proof, but you will get a mountian of information to show whos who at that time and where they are now, make the links, once you do that the picture is much different.

In my book when theres an offical version and an "inquiry" put it directly along side other information not from the same source and follow both, and also find out who is doing the inquiry and see how "independant" they are (or supposed to be). Never listen to one and simply ditch the other .. shades of grey and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I should not have said "bandwagon", because that is not really what I meant. I just thought it sounded cool. :P

Seriously though, Eisenhower was the most vociferous person in regard to disbanding the CIA, and even as he left office he continued to voice himself. I would think it would have been very easy to "shut him up" once he left office, and yet that did not happen despite his unwillingness to "let the issue go".

Remember that much of Kennedy's opinions were shaped by Eisenhower's statements, and yet Eisenhower outlived JFK. Eisenhower was the first president to cast condemnation on the CIA, and continued to do so, and that casts doubt on suspecting the CIA as being the primary conspirator. Why would the CIA let the "founder" of the anti-CIA movement live and then go after Kennedy?

I'm not saying it absolutely was not the CIA (I still think it could have been the CIA), but you have to admit that it is still far from being certain at this point. There can be many suspects in a case, but it does not mean that they are all guilty.

As far as the EU goes, yes it is true that it is a union, but again, having a common enemy does not necessarily make one a friend. Look at Russia during WWII. With Hilter around we fought on the same "team" with them, but as soon as Hitler disappeared, they instantly became our worst enemy. The EU has many "friendships" like this, so they unity is at best fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I should not have said "bandwagon", because that is not really what I meant. I just thought it sounded cool

He he :D in that case, say no more.

Why would the CIA let the "founder" of the anti-CIA movement live and then go after Kennedy?

Maybe you have to look at where Kennedy's loyalties sat overall compared to Eisenhower, and im talking behind the scenes (if you get me ... wink wink, nudge nudge .. handshake etc). Even top level folk in opposing sides may well be batting for the same team in the longrun, thats the wacky world as it stands now from how I see it.

We agree we dont know 100 percent but with the combination of the 2 points (fed & shaking down the wrong group from the inside) plus lets not forget against what then became the Vientnam War. Soon as he was out they were flipped over and undone most of his work and then the war went ahead. Put it another way, look at what was to gain for removing him and look at what did happen after he was taken out than before.

With Hilter around we fought on the same "team" with them, but as soon as Hitler disappeared, they instantly became our worst enemy.

Or you could also say they were the next big fear to bring to the table (War On Terror for example is the new one). The connection between leaders is a small world behind the scenes, but again thats a place most will poo-poo and shut down from looking at, which is a shame.

One things for sure at least many have got past the ludicrous oswold bullet theory white wash rubbish, things are not that simple, well, they are if you want them to appear that way at least.

Also sorry Metal Jacket if this has bored you to death, LOL ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calius, I am not being bored by this discussion, in fact I find it extremely fascinating.

The whole JFK thing needs answers, but yet the answers and the official explanation is nothing short of being sub par.

The official explanation, by the Warren Commission, still stands today, and is expected to be accepted, and final, it seems to me that the people we put in power have nothing but contempt for there public.

I did some research on the Warren Commission and found that one of the commissioners was Former CIA Director Allen Dulles, Allen Dulles was fired as director by JFK over the Bay of Pigs debacle, they certainly did not like each other

.

Also as commissioners there was a Former World Bank President John J Mcloy, and Representative Gerald Ford, future vice president and president, who appointed George H W Bush as Director of the CIA, by the way the Bush family and the Dulles family have some very close business and personal ties going all the way back to Grandpa Bush (Prescott Bush).

The credibility of the Warren Commission and its commissioners has to be questioned, simply due to its own findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bang on Metal Jacket, thats all I can say. The old dot connectors are frowned at and jumped on as, well, you know that word that gets used alot, initals: C.T ... those who have the guts to go out and actualy conduct REAL investigation are gold in my book.

The credibility of the Warren Commission and its commissioners has to be questioned, simply due to its own findings.

I agree totaly. I wont go too far as its been done already here in the 9/11 closed thread, but this has also had the same mirror of steps taken with "official reports". Like I say .. whenever you get that, look the other direction and check out those who are conducting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the CIA let the "founder" of the anti-CIA movement live and then go after Kennedy?

Maybe you have to look at where Kennedy's loyalties sat overall compared to Eisenhower, and im talking behind the scenes (if you get me ... wink wink, nudge nudge .. handshake etc). Even top level folk in opposing sides may well be batting for the same team in the longrun, thats the wacky world as it stands now from how I see it.

We agree we dont know 100 percent but with the combination of the 2 points (fed & shaking down the wrong group from the inside) plus lets not forget against what then became the Vientnam War. Soon as he was out they were flipped over and undone most of his work and then the war went ahead. Put it another way, look at what was to gain for removing him and look at what did happen after he was taken out than before.

With Hilter around we fought on the same "team" with them, but as soon as Hitler disappeared, they instantly became our worst enemy.

Or you could also say they were the next big fear to bring to the table (War On Terror for example is the new one). The connection between leaders is a small world behind the scenes, but again thats a place most will poo-poo and shut down from looking at, which is a shame.

Actually Calius that would not add up. Kennedy involving the US in the Vietnam War would have found "favor" in the eyes of the Federal Reserve according to conspiracy theorists (LBJ did nothing more that escalate our involvement in the war). Also, remember that with Kennedy's family ties to the Catholic Church, he would have been considered even more "connected" to "insiders" than someone like Eisenhower.

Remember the recession in the 60s? Going along the lines of conspiracy theorists the spending required by the Vietnam War would have been the perfect reason for government expansion, and a way to spend our way out of the 60s recession.

Try reading up on Eisenhower again. He was one of the biggest "enemies" of an overgrown "police state". Eisenhower came from the old school of less government intervention, and more citizen freedom. Kennedy by comparison was all for expansion of the Federal Government. Social programs and many government agencies would have flourished under his administration.

Sorry, but trying to label Kennedy as some sort of hero of freedom is so far from the truth it is not even funny. That is like saying he actually liked blacks. He took the votes, and then listen to the audio tapes of him talking to his brother. Racial slurs were part of his normal speach, and what of his remark "I don't know what to do with these N******" right after blacks gave him all their votes. Then he locks Sammy Davis Jr. out of the White House celebration, and he only eventually let Sammy in because Sinatra and a couple others strong armed him to let Sammy in. Even then Sammy was required to enter through the back door where the "other servants" came through.

Sorry Calius, but if you buy the idea that Kennedy was some sort of champion for freedom, you took the hook line and sinker altogether.

Kennedy's political platform was all for government growth, not a smaller government. People keep championing him like he was some sort of hero and that is nothing but a horrible lie. Same goes for FDR people hail him as some sort of hero and that is also far from the truth.

The facts of history contradict what is being said of him here, and the same goes for people like FDR, Truman, and many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Calius, but if you buy the idea that Kennedy was some sort of champion for freedom, you took the hook line and sinker altogether.

No I didnt quite say that, Maybe the eisenhower link is worthy more of a harder look at (which I will too so thanks :thumbsup: ). EVERYONE in those positions are dodgy in some respect, you can pick out all manner of dirty laundry on all of them no problem. I was refering in terms of where he was going ref taking down Fed, not being in agreement to leading up to the war IE right after it went ahead etc, those type of things, actualy looking to dismantle things that actualy do have an effect years on = things for the people as apposed to EVERYTHING for there own interest.

Sorry, but trying to label Kennedy as some sort of hero of freedom is so far from the truth it is not even funny. That is like saying he actually liked blacks.

??? No matter how you swing it mate, he ###### off enough people to get his head blown open even if he did spend most of his days in the clan wearing ladies underwear. Put into perspective yes we are still talking about those at that level, but within that level and what he was doing to ###### off a few would have helped, that wasnt going to happen = goodnight vienna = what we are talking about here. We could have a thread based on all of there links & dodgy dealings as long as your arm.

this was what I said about the man :

--->

I wont say Kennedy was perfect but his heart was in the right place for things we all agree are not helping us now.
:)

Would you say that as he was that bad it didnt matter in the long run that he was killed and do you think at that level nothing was of benefit to others for having him taken out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you say that as he was that bad it didnt matter in the long run that he was killed and do you think at that level nothing was of benefit to others for having him taken out?

That is a tough question. Remember that the people who passed the civil right legislation were the Republicans who jumped on the LBJ position of passing everything in memory of JFK. The move that LBJ made to pass the legislation in memory of JFK swayed a number of Democrats that were holding out, and perhaps would not have been willing to vote yes had JFK lived. Very slick on LBJ's part, and perhaps minorities today would be in a different position today had JFK lived. I don't mean that we would still have segregation, but it could be possible that minorities would have made less progress.

As far as the Fed and the CIA goes, JFK living would have probably been a good thing in some small measure. I say small measure because the Federal Reserve and the CIA could not have been disbanded in the manner that the Bank of the United States was. The people in the US were far better educated on these matter back in those days, and so measures like this would garner much public support.

Think about it, how many people today understand how the Fed works? There would have been little to no public support for this to happen. Think about this, FDR promised that the payroll deduction that he enacted on Macy's advice (yes, the department store), and the increased Federal Tax were only a temporary measure, and that both items would be repealed once the war was over. Well, the withholding and the increase are both still in effect. In essence we are still paying for WWII today. Where is the outcry about all of these crooked measures that FDR enacted.

Look at CEOs of companies today. Where was the public outcry about CEO compensation ten years ago? The problem with America today is that nobody cares about these things anymore. All people want is money, and as long as they have money to spend they could not care one wit about matters such as these. People are only complaining about CEO compensation because their pocketbooks are being squeezed.

Ultimately right now the people love the Fed. People are simply HOOKED on liquidity. Without the Fed the housing market would not have expanded this way, and people would not have been able to cash out billions on their homes every year. We are currently swimming in a sea of liquidity, and people love this.

This is simply how things currently are. None of this would have happened if #1 the Feds were not put into power in 1913, #2 We were not decieved into thinking we were on the gold standard by artificially fixing the price of gold by FDR, rather that fixing each dollar TO gold.

FDR was a sly pig, he knew that in time people would forget, so the income tax increase, the paycheck with holding, and an artificially fixed price of gold would be forgotton.

What is the solution to all of this? Unfortunately we have to wait until the economic climate provides a moment when we can get people's attention. You cannot educate people that are emotionally attached to something, you have to wait until the attachment is broken. Right now you simply cannot educate a people who are unwilling to listen. In time every fiat currency run economy collapses, some call this the Condratief Winter (an economic "supercycle" where all overly inflated assets deflate to a more sensible value). This will happen to us too, it is hard to believe, but no fiat currency can continue to inflate forever, just ask the Japanese, or grandparents who lived through the 30's in the US.

When the hardship arrives people will listen because they will want answers as to "what went wrong". Until then, I will try to spread the word as I am donig now, and wait patiently as we keep marching toward a deflationary decline.

Conspiracies can sometimes be interesting, but they more often than not simply distract people from the more important absolute truths that are out there. Why focus so much energy on conspiracies when you can focus more attention on what you can know to be ABSOLUTELY true.

Here is a politically neutral, and VERY educational site for those who want to know more about the dangers of a fiat currency. The Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education

This is the type of stuff that I see conspiracy theorists missing all the time, and frankly, all their rhetoric about the IRS and Feds mean nothing apart from a proper understanding of money. I think many conspiracy theorists mean well, but they have simply gone off the deep end in many cases. This is why I say the Federal Reserve, and big government in general have to LOVE them. So much energy and enthusiasm wasted on stuff that is mostly false. If conspiracy theorists would stop focusing on so much that is simply conjecture, and focus more on the facts, I think there might be more people that would be willing to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...