the fed is an off shore bank now....all Irs money has a destination off shore.

this story has been going on since the 15nth century... first generation of the Rothschild Dynasty... Fund all sides and Play em against the middle... its a rigged game, a bet you can't loose..

Look at the civil war Both sides funded by British and French Banks.
Lincoln wanted to have congress Regulate the dollar... he was well you know...

world war two... Grandpa bush, Morgan and Henry Ford all funded Hitler...

now its split up Iraq and Africa for the oil and mining deposits and the Ukraine got too uppity...

so the lucy's in charge (lucifarians) are gonna shoot themselves in the foot and start world war 3 or as my fly buddy calls it ww4 with russia... Putin said in a speech two weeks ago that the problems that arose in 19nth to 20nth century russia were the cause of Rothchild Czars

Its a 15nth century LUCIFARIAN Rothschild Model and all ali bama and the dems and republicrats in the senate have to do is just kiss the house of saud's butt... citibank and morgan and others are in the middle of it over there.

after posting this before I know that the fun will begin this time... if you know more and can add to the bigger picture... all criticism allowed... I believe in the constitution so tread lightly...
remember the border is open for a reason...shoot me down if I am wrong

Federal Reserve Money Continues to Go Offshore
John M. Mason
Banks, long-term horizon sun. 28, 2011 5:36 AM ET

Yesterday in my post I reviewed the consequences of QE2 on the Federal Reserve balance sheet.
The bottom line: “The ‘net’ increase in securities held outright by the Federal Reserve has been $589 billion, pretty close to the $600 billion ‘net’ increase promised.
Reserve balances at Federal Reserve banks, a proxy for excess reserves in the banking system, have increased by $584 billion to $1,594 billion over this time period. Actual excess reserves in the banking system averaged $1,610 billion for the two-week period ending June 15, 2011.”
Cash assets (excess reserves) at commercial banks in the United States rose by about $800 billion from December 29, 2010 to June 15, 2011 and closed slightly below $1,870 billion on the latter date.
Basically the Federal Reserve pumped all these reserves into the banking system and there they seemingly sit. Yet, the amazing thing is that of the almost $800 billion increase in cash assets in American banks, almost 85 percent of the increase, or about $670 billion, ended up on the balance sheets of Foreign-related Institutions in the United States.
And, what increased on the other side of the balance sheet?
Net deposits due to related foreign offices. These balances rose by almost $500 billion since the end of last year.
In essence, it appears as if much of the monetary stimulus generated by the Federal Reserve System went into the Eurodollar market. This is all part of the “Carry Trade” as foreign branches of an American bank could borrow dollars from the “home” bank creating a Eurodollar deposit. This Eurodollar deposit could be lent to foreign banks or investors and this would not change the immediate dollar holdings of the American bank. This lending and borrowing in Eurodollar deposits could then multiply throughout the world. And, the American bank might be the ‘foreign-related” institution mentioned above and included in the statistical reports.
Note that the original dollar deposit created by the Fed is still recorded as a deposit at one Federal Reserve bank no matter how much shifting around the borrowing and lending in the Eurodollar market occurs.
Thus, it appears as if the Federal Reserve pumped one-half a trillion dollars off-shore since the end of 2010!
And, this is going to stimulate spending and getting the economy to grow faster?
Cash assets at the smaller banks remained relatively flat over the last six months…and over the last three months. Thus, the reserves the Fed was pumping into the banking system were not going into the smaller banks.
And, although the largest twenty-five banks in the country increased their cash assets by about $130 billion over the last six months, these banks have been reducing their cash balances (by a little more than $30 billion) over the last three months.
What have the domestically chartered commercial banks been doing over the last six months?
Basically, the twenty-five largest domestically chartered commercial banks have been modestly increasing their loans to businesses, both in the three-month period and the six-month period. Commercial and Industrial loans as well as commercial real estate loans have been increasing at the largest banks over the past three-month period.
However, business loans continue to “tank” at the smaller banking institutions. For example, Commercial and Industrial loans at the smaller institutions dropped by almost $5.0 billion from March 30 to June 15. Commercial Real Estate loans took an even bigger hit of almost $35 billion.
Also, at the smaller banks, residential mortgages continue to decline…by a little over $9.0 billion since March 30 and by almost $35 billion over the last six months.
The real lending by commercial banks is not taking place in the United States. The lending is taking place off-shore, underwritten by the Federal Reserve System and this is doing little or nothing to help the American economy grow.

page 1 / 2
|Next »

Is the Federal Reserve System a Governmental or a Privately controlled organization?
On February 11, 2008, in Uncategorized, by AMI

Students of our monetary system quickly encounter this important question, normally phrased as whether the Federal Reserve System is part of the U.S. Government or is a private organization. The importance people are placing on the answer is indicated by the over 36,000 web sites the question raises on internet search engines.

We’ll examine evidence in the Federal Reserve legislation; in how the Fed operates; from Congressional testimony; from statements from the Federal Reserve’s publications; in statements by former Chairmen of the House Banking Committee; and in official rulings by US courts, to show why we conclude that although there are some elements of ambiguity, the Federal Reserve system is essentially dominated and controlled by private financiers, not our government; and to the extent that there is ownership of it, it is entirely private. Therefore despite the ambiguity – and confusion – the Fed is more accurately seen as a private, not a governmental institution, though with substantial governmental ties.

The ambiguity arises from a combination of misleading appearances; the fact that our President appoints (with consent of the Senate) the Chairman of the Fed to four year terms, and the 5 member Board in Washington to 14 year terms; the fact that the Fed is supposed to promote governmental fiscal policy; and the fact that the system was originally set up in law by Congress in 1913 and can be altered, nationalized or even dismantled by Congress.

Most Americans understand that the Fed controls our money system, but they believe its part of our government, as would be expected of any organization holding that much power over the destiny of our country. Americans also erroneously believe the banking business consists of accepting deposits from clients and then re-loaning them to borrowers at a higher rate of interest. Though the number is definitely growing, most Americans have no idea that money (or more accurately interest bearing bank credits – purchasing media which serves as money) is created by the banking system when loans are made, through the fractional reserve provisions. This is understood by few novices, and often economists and even bankers fail to comprehend that they function as part of a money creation system, when they issue credits, and deposit them into their client’s accounts when loans are extended.

Therefore most Americans would be surprised to learn that almost all of what we use for money is not issued by our government, but by private banks. They have been “allowed” to form erroneous assumptions about our money and banking system that are far from reality and that serves to shield from closer scrutiny, whether the Fed is truly operating in the public interest or advancing more private agendas, either on purpose or by default.

Organization And Ownership:

The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus). The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend..

Thus the stories that the Federal Reserve is “owned” by foreign bankers (the Rothschild’s and other prominent banker names usually come up) are not accurate and these types of rumors have mainly served to discredit wholesome criticism of the banking system. While it is true that our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States, upon dissolution in 1811 was found to be three quarters owned by British and Dutch interests, that bank was structured simply as a private share company on the Bank of England model.* The control of the Federal Reserve System is more difficult to untangle and is not just a matter of counting shareholder votes. While foreign bankers might indirectly own shares of the regional Federal Reserve Banks through ownership of American banking companies, such ownership would be reported to the SEC if any entity held more than 5% of the American corporation. This however does not exclude strong, potentially undue foreign influence, for example through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

A “Non-Profit” Organization?

The Federal Reserve System puts itself forward as a non-profit organization that turns over its operating profits to the U.S. Treasury, after all expenses, including the 6% dividend to member banks. However this misses the point on several scores. First, the banking profits coming through the privileged money creation process mainly occurs at the member bank level of operation, and those profits are not turned over to the Treasury. That is, the net earnings from the member banks seigniorage privilege are not turned over to our government but kept by the private member banks. For England this amount has been estimated at 41 Billion Pounds per year. For the US we think it’s between $100-200 billion per year; but we need to know the amount more precisely from the Fed itself.

This money creation which is put into the system when the banks extend loans, eventually becomes a source of funding when our government’s bonds are sold to the public. Here is how Wright Patman, former House Banking and Currency Committee Chairman for 16 years criticized that process:

“I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money….I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with the Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.”

We think the time has come.

Secondly, how extravagant are the FED’s operating expenses? Reputedly quite high, but in order to determine that for sure a proper audit would be necessary. Just where did the extensive real assets of the Fed come from if all the earnings are turned over to the Treasury? (Fed capital as of June 28, 2006 was $29.462 billion) Perhaps some part of it comes from member bank subscriptions to the regional Fed shares. Another question for the audit to address. (If memory serves correctly, the Fed used to turn over 90% not all, of its earnings over to the Treasury; but now its 100%.

Control:

Private ownership does not guarantee private control – they can be two different things. Although ownership of the fed is admittedly private in a restricted way, it is control which is the more important factor in regarding the Fed as private, not governmental. Remember the question is whether the control rests more in private or governmental hands, not whether it rests directly in shareholders hands.

It will be clear from the following points that the Fed is definitely not part of the US Government:

* The Fed is not organized within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of our government.

* Who pays the Fed’s bills and determines its budget? Not any part of our government. The Fed gets its funding from its own specially privileged operations. The Fed Board determines Fed budgets.

* Who monitors and oversees Fed activities? Again the Fed itself. While some important elements of proper auditing have taken place, there has not yet been a comprehensive independent audit, by the Government Accountability Office as proposed in a recent letter from Ralph Nader to new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, calling for greater monetary transparency.

* Federal Reserve Employees are not part of the US Civil Service System and are not covered by government employees’ health insurance or pension programs. Who does the hiring and firing? Except for the highly publicized Chairman and 7 member Washington Board, this is in private, unelected hands.

* Federal Reserve Banks are not listed as government organizations by the telephone companies, a small but telling fact.
Here is how the Fed describes the Control situation, in the FAQ’s on its website:

“As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government.”

We’d suggest the phrase “independent within the government” is much too ambiguous and has the effect of conveying great power while avoiding responsibility.

The Fed’s FAQ’s continue regarding control:

“The Federal Reserve’s ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.

“To ensure financial accountability, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the General Accounting Office, as well as the Board’s Office of Inspector General, can audit Federal Reserve activities.”


We agree with Mr. Nader that it is time for the General Accountability Office to carry out this full audit of the Federal Reserve System. We take at face value the Fed’s statement that the only way for our government to exert necessary societal controls on the Fed is through legislation altering the Federal Reserve Act.
The Federal Reserve Act

Reading the Act with the question of control in mind, what one finds are primarily an enumeration and description of vast powers over our monetary system being ceded to the non – governmental Federal Reserve. Primary among these are the powers necessary to administer a fractional reserve banking system in which the creation of money – what we use for purchasing media – is in private hands.

One is struck by the general absence of governmental controls over Fed activity, and lack of requirements toward our elected representatives.

One is struck by the lack of accountability of the Fed to our governmental officials or bodies.

One is struck by the lack of any specified penalties should the system be found to not be promoting governmental public policy at all.

One is struck by the lack of formal oversight procedures to determine whether that is happening or not.

The Act requires the Chairman to appear before Congress and Congressional committees four times a year, and requires the Board to submit two written reports to Congress annually. To understand that this is not sufficient oversight, one need only read Congressman Bernie Sanders questioning of Chairman Greenspan, from the Congressman’s website. When tough questions were put to the Chairman, as Congressman Sanders did, forms of stalling non-answers came back until the announcement, “Your time is up Mr. Congressman.”

While the act specifies that the Comptroller of the Currency has the power to directly examine any member bank in the system, he is not empowered to examine Federal Reserve Regional banks – that is in the hands of the Washington Board. 14 year appointments – a one time event for them – places them outside the influence of our elected officials, in other words outside the democratic process.

Probably this “independence” was sold as a good thing! From the time of Adam Smith, there has been a growing attack against government, as being incapable of managing the monetary system. Despite the evidence that government has a far better record controlling money than private bankers have*; despite the fact that government is the only organizational form with ability to stand between the people and the “Enrons” of the world. It is time to rethink this “independence” question and examine the actual evidence, rather than to continue relying on free market ideology – really a form of elitist propaganda. It would be smarter to examine mankind’s actual experience with government controlled money systems – especially in America. For what reason did the Federal Reserve Act envision that it would be saints serving on the Fed Board?
Some Conclusions from Court Cases

Several legal proceedings further illuminate the private aspects of the Fed. This case refers to several of those cases.

1) JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.

(No. 80-5905, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002; March 2, 1982, Submitted; April 19, 1982, Decided)

[Lewis had been injured by a car owned by the San Francisco Fed and sued the US Government for damages. Note that this ruling particularly applies to the regional Federal Reserve Banks, not necessarily the Federal Reserve Board. Thus even more ambiguity!]

Excerpts from the ruling:

The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction….

“Federal agency” is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act (28 U.S.C. § 2671), but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity…. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation…, whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances…. and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States… Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361….

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so…. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine…[Note: neither the Act, nor this court explained how that is done] the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, … a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. … Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. …The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes….The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation…. The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function….Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions…. Brink’s Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. … For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court. [end of excerpts]

Is the Fed Operating in the Public Interest and Promoting Governmental Policy?

Short answer: No.

Your Tax Dollars Will Fund Abortions and Planned Parenthood Under Obamacare, Here’s How

by Susan Muskett, J.D. | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/25/13 12:01 AM

Print
Email

National

On a Friday night back in December 2009, Senate Majority Leader Reid was in tense negotiations with then-Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as Reid desperately needed Nelson’s vote to secure Senate passage of ObamaCare. Finally, Nelson had what Politico described as a “breakthrough” that lead to a deal, as Politico reported a few days later. Part of the deal, Politico wrote, was that “people who receive federal subsidies would need to write two separate checks as a way to ensure that none of the federal dollars went toward the abortion premium.”

Six days later, Senator Nelson took to the Senate floor to explain in detail the deal he had negotiated. With respect to the two check requirement, Senator Nelson said: “In the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds–perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account– for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds.” [155 Cong. Rec. S14134 (Dec. 24, 2009)].

At the time, the Washington Post quoted Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America as saying, “The absurdity of requiring these two separate checks doesn’t accomplish anything toward the supposed goal of segregating federal funds. . . . It just creates additional hoops for insurance companies . . . and more administrative burdens and obstacles for women to get the coverage they need.” Likewise, a NARAL factsheet bemoaned the Nelson language: “Requiring individuals to write two checks in order to purchase coverage that includes a benefit–abortion services . . . is a new, unnecessary hassle. . . . these burdens could severely limit women’s ability to obtain abortion coverage within the exchange.” (Note, an Exchange is a marketplace for the purchase of health insurance. ObamaCare requires an Exchange to be established in every state by 2014).

The ObamaCare statute specifically requires the issuers of Exchange plans that cover abortion to “collect from each enrollee in the plan” a “separate payment” for the type of abortions for which funding is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment (which is all abortions other than in cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest) and a separate payment for all other services. [42 U.S.C. 18023(b)]. These separate payments are then to be deposited into separate accounts.

During the regulatory process, commenters questioned HHS on how this was to be implemented, and according to HHS, the commenters “recommended that HHS clarify . . . whether [Exchange plan] issuers may satisfy the separate payment provision by providing each enrollee with an itemized bill, and whether an enrollee’s coverage would be terminated for failure to comply with the separate payment provision.” Rather than doing so, HHS merely said that the comments would be taken into consideration in any future guidance. [77 Fed. Reg. 18430 (March 27, 2012)].

Now, despite the clear language of the ObamaCare statute, it appears that the separate check requirement is not going to be enforced by the Obama Administration. Gretchen Borchelt, director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women’s Law Center, told the Huffington Post that “we used to talk about it as being two checks that the consumer would have to write because of the segregation requirements, but that’s not the way it’s being implemented.” (Huffington Post, Sept. 3, 2013).

Likewise, a spokeswoman for Rhode Island’s Exchange told PolitiFact Rhode Island that “the customer is not billed a separate fee.” (Politifact, Oct. 2, 2013. The Rhode Island Exchange will handle the billing, not the plan issuers). As PolitiFact notes, “it turns out to be a hidden fee.”

From a pro-life perspective, the most important fact is that massive federal premium subsidies will go to Exchange plans that cover elective abortion (a sharp departure from the longstanding policy of the Hyde Amendment), and every enrollee in the plan will have a portion of the enrollee’s premium placed into a separate account for elective abortions (dubbed the “abortion surcharge”). But this is just one example of how the Obama administration is implementing ObamaCare in a way so as to advance the abortion industry.

Essential Community Providers. ObamaCare regulations require health insurance issuers in an Exchange to ensure “reasonable and timely access” to a “broad range” of Essential Community Providers for low-income individuals in the plan’s service area. Among these Essential Community Providers are clinics that receive Title X family planning funds, such as Planned Parenthood clinics. (Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in America today). A search of the non-exhaustive list of Essential Community Providers maintained on an HHS’ website reveals 589 Planned Parenthood clinics among the Essential Community Providers.

Not to leave a stone unturned, in October 2011, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups, wrote HHS asserting that “we believe that the final rulemaking should include language that clarifies that health plans, Exchanges, and states cannot exclude or discriminate against providers because they provide or refer for comprehensive women’s health services.” Apparently, these groups were concerned that a state might choose to direct women to health care providers that don’t perform abortions. Of course, the Obama Administration addressed their concern. When the Final Rule was issued, it included a new provision that explicitly states that a health plan issuer in an Exchange “may not be prohibited from contracting with any essential community provider.” (45 CFR 155.1050).

Abortion Coverage for Congress. A provision within ObamaCare requires that Members of Congress and certain congressional staff purchase their health plans on the Exchanges, starting January 1, 2014. The Obama Administration writes the regulations implementing this statutory language and in doing so, they propose allowing the government to purchase abortion-covering plans for Members of Congress and their staffs, which is something that no other federal employee is allowed to do.

For most of the past 30 years the “Smith Amendment” has banned the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from paying any administrative expenses for any plan that includes elective abortion coverage. OPM does not dispute the application of the Smith Amendment to the purchase of Exchange plans by Members of Congress and certain congressional staff. Rather, OPM erroneously asserts that the Smith Amendment prohibits OPM from using appropriated funds to “administer” Exchange plans by administering “the terms of the health benefits plans offered on an Exchange.” This deceptive assertion ignores the plain wording of the Smith Amendment which explicitly prohibits the use of any appropriated federal funds “to pay for . . . the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan . . . which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.” (emphasis added). It is undeniable that OPM will incur “administrative expenses in connection with” the purchase of Exchange health plans that cover abortion. The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to retroactively rewrite the laws.

Federal Reserve Bank Exempted From Income Tax

A number of people have asked me how I can know that the Federal Reserve Bank has never paid a dime in income tax in 84 years. The answer of course, is that it is in the law, and has been since 1913. Check this out:

12 U.S.C. 531. Exemption From Taxation.

Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.
12 USC 531


Can you tell me why a private corporation (the Federal Reserve Bank) - with an unconstitutional monopoly on both currency and credit - is exempt from income tax ?? How much do you think they are making? How much do you think they already own?

Do you understand that under this existing system every American citizen alive today paying income tax is nothing more than a Federal PEON to this group of private BANKSTERS !!!

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER !

Do you still feel represented ???

Did you know there are laws against peonage in America ?

This whole damn thing is totally unconstitutional, and is being used to destroy the American constitutional republic, its People, and their wealth, freedoms and national solvency.

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED TODAY, OR LIE DOWN AND DIE TOMORROW !!

WTH is an "OFFSHORE-CENTRAL-BANK"?

It is something fictional ... like the claims in the OP.

actually left last night deleted\and bugged out after my browser was shaking while posting this stuff...

all tax money goes offshore as witnessed with texas state tax dollars it goes all over

all banks tax exempt and keep most of the booty off shore...

where does cheny live huh

... many top co. tax exempt have holdings off shore... this is old school now. even with the new off shore laws for american citizens..

if you are a citizen,tax payer even a foreigner you will be taxed audited///if you have off shore holdings... banks exempt from audits

double standard or something else/ I say thi stuff will ruin us

thanks crayons

ps never got to tie this all together... a