Ron Paul has just achieved 51% support for his Bill HR 1207 to audit the US Federal Reserve.These private group of 12 banks own the US currency and loan all funds to the US Govt.The bill must first of all get out of committee and then must be passed by the Senate.The pressure from the US people is making Congress act.This is could be the beginning of change and hopefully the power will swing back to the people.The Fed as it is known,is mounting a campaign to discredit the bill and try an intimidate Congressmen who support it.It could be a life and death struggle for the Fed since the public are in no mood for any more nonsense from these banks,whom many see as being the root cause of this financial crisis.

On the international front; China,India and Russia will meet in Brazil in June 09 to instigate talks on a new global reserve currency.Who will own this new currency and how will our currency be valued against it? China is suggesting that the IMF being in control of it,but I'd like to see serious reform of the IMF if they are to have so much power.

This over time will shift the balance of power away from the European/US Central Banks and this could create more military instability if the US feels threatened.

We in our country should be looking at ways of limiting Corporate dominance in our political system.Our Govts have been too impotent and inept for too long.

See; http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/russia_china_dollars/2009/06/11/224024.html http://forum.freemarkets.ca/topic.php?id=448

Arjay, with respect, I have watched your ever more strange claims about world finances.
I have tried to find some common ground, we both are appalled at this crisis, the grubs behind it, and its dreadful results.
But we go very different paths from that point.
I blame governments, but for to little control not too much.
I see true criminals not being bought to justice.
Surely more control more accountability is the answer?

Belly,I don't tink you understand what I'm saying.I would like to see less corporate influence in Govt.Business does not give enormous amounts of money to Govt for no results.We have the highest food inflation in the developed world because of lack of competition and restrictive trade practises,yet Kevin Rudd and John Howard ignored the reality.In many cases the laws/penalities are there to catch criminals but the judiciary are soft.We do not need more laws/Govt to limit people's freedoms.We just need a fairer system of rules and for groups like the ACCC to be given the power to act.

Now in the US,not all Congressmen agree with Ron Pau's philosophy of free markets and small Govt but there is a common thread of breaking the power of the US Fed since this system of banking that creates money via debt,inflates and deflates the money supply is totally wrong.There are certain common threads upon which we do all agree upon and that is the notions of fairness and freedom.We just disagree on how to get there.

The only way to break the corporate power of governments, is to make them accountable, as they were before 1953, in the ordinary courts of law, by due process of law. Due process used to mean a Writ was issued, it was tested in the name of the Chief Justice, as representative of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, and it was tried by a jury of 12 electors, and if it was a good bill, it was approved and if it was a foul bill, it was struck out, on the verdict of those 12 electors.

Today we have not had due process of law, since 1953, in the High Court, in Bankruptcy Courts since 1966, and in the Supreme Court in New South Wales since 1970. The worst excesses of the Whitlam government leading to the decimation of the Labor Party in 1975, could not have happened if the corporate power of government had been still controllable by the due process of law.

The corporate States of Australia have all created their own Star Chambers, Courts of law without the integrity they used to have before 1970. The first Star Chambers were erected in South Australia in 1927, when universal jury trial in civil jurisdiction was abolished. The Corporate State is a universal Church, confined within State boundaries, and with its own Priesthood, appointed by the State Executive, to carry out its will. They are an abomination. Every Australian is a member of the Commonwealth. Every Australian has been granted power by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, in s 13 and 15 F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), to call every corporation in Australia to account.

The States have frustrated this enormous power, by abolishing their courts, and creating Star Chambers, manned by State Priests in their stead. They are called Courts, and the Commonwealth is as guilty as each State in this regard. The Parliament of the Commonwealth created its own Star Chamber in 1976. We cannot curb the excesses of the corporate States, until the Commonwealth gets the Federal Court of Australia to work

The United States came about as a result of 13 rebel colonies, denied due process of law, conducting a war of independence. Australia came about because six colonial governments, saw the future of Australia in unity. The people who framed our Constitution, looked at the American model, and decided that their Supreme Court was not working as well as it should. They gave Australia a Federal Supreme Court. They named it the High Court, but it was not a Court, it was to be a court. It was given what was called original jurisdiction. That was by s 75 Constitution, and it really was designed to curb the power of corporate government.

Until 1953, everyone, from anywhere in Australia could file a Writ in that court, in the same form as existed in each State Supreme Court, tested in the name of the Chief Justice, and issued as of right. The destruction of the Whitlam Government was assured, when in 1953, Menzies made the High Court an exclusive club. Instead of having to look over his shoulder, Whitlam the lawyer knew he could pretty much do whatever he wanted, subject only to an election, because in 1970, the Supreme Court in New South Wales was also abolished. Before that it was a check and balance on executive power, not only State but federally.

In 2004, the High Court totally destroyed itself, by the High Court Rules 2004. It was made into a Star Chamber officially in 1979, by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 but it still had Writs until 2004. It still comes out and says, We represent the Queen, but issues no process in Her name anymore. Is it any wonder we have a very restless population. We have rampant State Corporations, exploiting their populations mercilessly, with licences and taxes, permits to do almost anything required to be issued by them, and restrictive trade practices, imposed upon property so that their licences have a value.

The Corporate power of governments will not be broken, until we are given back the rule of law. That applies universally.

PtB, you may ask, what is the rule of law? I can waffle on but unless I explain what the rule of law is, I will probably lose you in the clutter. The rule of law was: from 1275, and the Statute of Westminster the First, the universal right to elect. It said elections ought to be free. Back in 1275, it meant election of mode of trial. It should still do so, because it was part of the pyramid of laws, upon which the Constitution was built. The Constitution of Australia has many chapters, and Ch III is entitled the Judicature.

The Judicature was to be the way corporate power was controlled. The Judicature Act 1976 was enacted in Queensland in a mirror of the English Act of the same name. In 1900, the S 118 Constitution, was enacted to give full faith and credit to the laws, public Acts, and records , and the judicial proceedings of every State. The Judicature Act 1876 Queensland, contained the following passage.

259 Duty of judge and jury
(1) It shall be the duty of a jury to answer any question of fact that may be left to them by the presiding judge at the trial.
(2) But nothing herein or in any rule of court contained shall take away or prejudice the right of any party to any action to have the questions submitted and left by the judge to the jury with a proper and complete direction to the jury upon the law and as to the evidence applicable to such questions.

In the light of the above passage, there can be no doubt the Federal Supreme Court as currently called the High Court, is not a court of judicature. Any party to any action, means a universal right to free election. When the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, was enacted, it overlooked this section. The Parliament of Queensland enacted the Supreme Court Act 1995, to include it, but no Judge in Queensland has accepted that this is law.

Why should they? Cameron Dick Attorney General won’t

When the Supreme Court in Queensland went bad in 1991, the State went bad at the same time. The State after the Australia Act 1986 has been proclaiming itself a Sovereign State, and Queen Anna Bligh was recently reelected, but there is a big fly in her pot of ointment. It’s called the Rudd Government.

The best friend that Corporate States ever had was the Howard Government. By doling out Liberal amounts of Federal Money, the Commonwealth was supposedly able to do what was forbidden by the Constitution, by using the legislative power of the States. This was of course dishonest, but since 1953, there has been no way a single individual can call the Corporate Governments to account.

To appease the Climate Change fanatics, the Commonwealth used the States to stop land clearing on freehold land. This stopped about 85 billion tonnes of carbon being released to the atmosphere, in the past ten years, but has ruined and severely handicapped thousands of farmers. In a book entitled The State of Fear, Michael Crichton, puts forward the proposition that a State has to keep its population in a constant state of fear, in order to survive. The cure for a State of Fear, is a fully functioning judicature system. The Commonwealth also used the States to appease the gun control fanatics. In return for Liberal money, the States banned automatic rifles.

If a person could prove to a jury a use for an automatic weapon, the person ought to have been allowed to keep it. Martin Essenberg tried to establish this principle, but was overruled, by the now disabled High Court. When Ben Chiffley said there has never been a law an Australian could not drive a horse and cart through, he was talking about a different Australia. It was an Australia where unless you were adjudged to be harming your neighbour, you could pretty much do as you liked.

Now corporate Australia tells you what you must do, and not just one corporation, but two. The long hairy nose of government intrudes into everyone business, and freedom has bolted

Same old bandwagon, eh Arjay, with the same scant regard for reality.

But I think on this occasion PtB has said all that needs to be said on the topic, and is to be congratulated for the succinctness and clarity of his analysis..

I'll await with interest your response to his rapier-like dissection of your assertions, Arjay.

Mind you, it might also be smart to take a closer look at the detail of HR1207, and ask yourself exactly how it might meet your own particular wishes, which appear to be along the lines of "less corporate influence in Govt.Business".

Perhaps, Arjay, you could explain in a little more detail what you can see as being the outcome of this - rather expensive - exercise. Apart from windfall profits to fat-cat accounting firms, that is.

Pericles,on this topic we will never agree.Mayer Amschel Rothschild 1743-1812."Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes the laws."

Peter the Believer gives us a great dissertation on the legal history but the fundamental power lies with those who create the currency,since in creating currency you in essence hold the potential energy of all society and that should not belong to a private group of corporate entities called banks.

Why is it illegal for Pericles to counterfeit money? Why is it then legal for banks to do likewise? When banks create money in their computers above real productivity, they like counterfeiters are diluting the wealth of the rest of society via a mechanism we know as inflation.To take the wealth of society and loan it back to them at a profit is theft.

If you are saying that 224 US Congressmen are wrong in wanting to audit the US Federal Reserve even after viewing the debacle of Elizabeth Coleman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUreWxKGOkY
then I really have to question your motives in wanting to supress transparency of both Govt and the banks who have created thei crisis.

Those who are challenged by my opinion that Christianity was central to our legal system, and that we have now lost it, should consider the offence created by the Parliament of the Commonwealth in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) . It is called S 268:10 Offence against humanity: Enslavement. It carries a term of imprisonment of 25 years. It enacts into law, ,the fundamental Christian belief, that under Our God, unlike the religions derived from the son of a slave girl, Christianity cannot tolerate one person exercising ownership over another.

Because we have a Christian Constitution, with a Queen, who subscribes to the Gospels. Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments. No one man or woman has a monopoly on justice. Justice requires a jury. From 1640 this was made plain, and one of the reasons the lawyers don’t want the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is it legislates against arbitrary attacks, on a persons honour and reputation. This is what all Judges and Magistrates do when they do not take a verdict, and presume to be Almighty God, for a day.

Exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person includes purchases, sells, lends or barters, a person or imposes on a person a similar deprivation of liberty and also exercises a power arising from a debt incurred or contract made by a person.

This is not PtB, this is the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It means that every Judge and Magistrate is a perpetrator, when they make an arbitrary judgment, violently taking away a persons liberty or property, without first asking permission from a jury.

The English Magna Carta vested all of this power in a jury, because they did not think a Priest should have that power, and avoided the Inquisition. Both sentence and guilt was a jury prerogative. For that reason, I believe the offence is real, but not the sentence. Sentencing should be the absolute domain of a jury, not a Judge

You always seem to ignore the important bits, Arjay.

>>If you are saying that 224 US Congressmen are wrong in wanting to audit the US Federal Reserve even after viewing the debacle of Elizabeth Coleman...<<

I have absolutely no problem with the auditing of the Fed, as I have said in a number of previous posts. Nor the slightest concern as to what they would find.

Auditing is good, and entirely neutral.

It is also fiendishly expensive. So out of respect for the taxpayer, they normally perform audits on a regular, rather than ad hoc, basis.

So alongside all the wingnut conspiracy theorists, I'd guess that all the major accounting firms have been lobbying their Congressman for this too. Just call it another vested interest.

The whole thing is, I'm afraid, political theatre. My guess would be that the Bill never sees the light of day in its present form, but a whole lot of eager-beaver politicians use it in the meantime to spruik the stuff that brings them political donations.

That is after all how US politics works, is it not?

>>When banks create money in their computers above real productivity, they like counterfeiters are diluting the wealth of the rest of society via a mechanism we know as inflation.<<

You are actually half-right, but the half you misunderstand just happens to be the important bit.

When there is a hole in the bucket as big as the one that our collective careless credit created, one way to tackle the problem is to fill it with new money. That is what various governments have determined is the best way to address it.

In the final analysis, it is we who are borrowing against our future, with the assistance of the government.

One big hole is of course unfunded Government Pensions.

Any ideas how they are linked to "real productivity"?