Nathan Rothschild : "....The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the Bri

You probably still think voters matter, and that Gov's work in the interests of the people -

 

yea, they lay the bs on thick, don't they

all i've got is the truth

 

It's been thoroughly debunked:


The Federal Reserve System is the primary regulatory agency governing the U.S. banking industry. It has singular importance in setting monetary policy and many economists believe it has substantial influence on the course of the business cycle. Yet, could it be that the most important economic institution in the United States is actually owned by foreigners? Gary Kah (1991) and Eustace Mullins (1983) authored separate books alleging that a secretive international banking elite owns and controls the Fed. Furthermore, his shadowy group uses its power to manipulate financial markets and to control the U.S. economy.

The focus of both books is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. What we typically call the ‘Fed’ is actually a two level system: 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks (the New York Fed is one of them) and the Board of Governors that runs them (Alan Greenspan is the Board’s chair). Gary Kah claimed foreigners directly own the New York Fed, the largest and most important of the dozen regional institutions. Through it the international collaborators control the entire Federal Reserve System and reap its gigantic profits. Eustace Mullins agreed on the importance of the New York Fed, but instead claimed it is owned indirectly by foreigners – through a European banking club he termed the “London Connection” which controls the Fed’s policies from abroad.

Are any of allegations true? In this article I focus on whether foreigners own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York either directly or indirectly, whether it controls the enitre of the Federal Reserve System, and whether foreigners receive the Fed’s large annual profits.

Who Owns the New York Federal Reserve?
Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized as a corporation in much the same way as many other firms. According to Kah, foreigners own a controlling interest in the shares of the New York Fed. He claimed that “Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts” identified the top eight shareholders as

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers of New York
Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
Chase Manhatten Bank, and
Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13).
He also described these groups as the bank’s “Class A shareholders” (p. 14). This is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner. It can be either “member stock” or “public stock,” but there are no such things as ‘Class A’ shares. However, the directors of a Federal Reserve Bank are separated into classes A, B, and C depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA §302). This may have been the source of Kah’s confusion.
Eustace Mullins compiled a very different list. He reported that the top 8 stockholders of the New York Fed were

Citibank
Chase Manhatten Bank
Morgan Guaranty Trust
Chemical Bank
Manufacturers Hanover Trust
Bankers Trust Company
National Bank of North America, and
Bank of New York.
According to Mullins these institutions in 1983 owned a combined 63% of the New York Fed’s stock. These American banks, in turn, were owned by European financial institutions. Since the commercial banks in the New York Fed's district elect its board of directors, the London Connection is able to use their American agents to pick the Bank's directors and ultimately control the whole Federal Reserve System. He explained,
... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today (Mullins, p. 47-4.
He remarked further that the day the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, “the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers” (p. 29).

Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the two lists. According to Kah, foreigners own shares of the New York Fed directly, but Mullins stated they owned and controlled the Fed indirectly through ownership of American banks. So who is right? Mullins cited the Federal Reserve Bulletin for his information on share ownership, but that publication has never reported the shareholder list of any Federal Reserve Bank. Kah’s source is equally elusive – unnamed Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts. Despite the difficulty in verifying their sources, it may be possible that both men are correct. The two authors published their lists eight years apart. Since Mullins’ was the earlier of the two, it may be possible that sometime between 1983 and 1991 foreigners acquired a substantial amount of stock in the New York Fed. Of course, it is also possible that they're both wrong.

To clarify this mystery, let’s first look at the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The law requires that all nationally chartered commercial banks and S&Ls buy stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank, thereby becoming “member banks” (12 USCA §282). State chartered banks may also join voluntarily. The amount of stock a given bank must purchase is proportional to the bank’s size, so we would expect that the largest shareholders to be the biggest commercial banks operating in the district. This agrees with Mullins since all of the banks on his list were the largest banks in the New York region in 1983.

Gary Kah’s list of alleged shareholders is more suspect. The law does not permit the stock of a Federal Reserve Bank to be traded publicly like the stock of a typical corporation (12 USCA §286). The original Federal Reserve Act called for each regional Bank to sell stock to raise at least $4 million to begin operations (12 USCA §281). The stock was to be sold only to banks, not to the public. Only in the event that sales to member banks did not raise the necessary $4 million would the regional Fed Banks be permitted to sell shares to the public. However, all Banks raised the requisite amount of capital. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm (Woodward, 1996). Foreign interests comprise half of the alleged owners on Kah’s list. Moreover, three of the hypothesized American owners are not even banks: Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Kuhn-Loeb are all investment banks, not commercial banks, and so are ineligible to own any shares of a Federal Reserve Bank. The law prohibits the general public, non-bank firms, and foreigners from owning anything more than a trivial amount of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank (12 USCA §283). The only institution on Kah's list that could possibly own shares of the New York Fed is Chase Manhatten. All the others named on the list are incorrect. Kah's list is mostly bunk.

Fortunately, we can take a more direct approach to the question of ownership of the New York Fed and the other Federal Reserve Banks. The New York Fed reports that its eight largest member banks on June 30, 1997 were:

Chase Manhatten Bank
Citibank
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
Fleet Bank
Bankers Trust
Bank of New York
Marine Midland Bank, and
Summit Bank.3
All of the major shareholders seen here and all of the banks on the complete list are either nationally- or state-charted banks. All of them are American-owned. Kah’s claim that foreigners directly own the N.Y. Fed is completely wrong. This list is consistent, however, with Mullins in that all the owners are domestic banks functioning within the N.Y. Federal Reserve district. The discrepancies are likely due to mergers or other significant changes in the size of district banks since the publication of Mullins’ list. To obtain a list of member banks of other Federal Reserve banks, click here.



http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty5.html

- - - Updated - - -

Votes do matter, your laughable bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim was debunked as the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that it was and now you must shift goal posts yet again and now your claim is apparently that the Rothschilds own the Israeli government too

 

i think you guys missed the point.

if anything the Rothschilds would own Israel's banking / monetrary system.

 

Care to provide evidene to that effect?

 

key words: "if anything"

 

You are debunking a book.

Debunk the senate report!

 

It wasn't a senate report it was submitted by a staffer his source was the authors of the books debunked by the article I posted, but I suspect you didn't read either of them as you would have already known that having looked at the lists and the claims of the supposed shareholders in the non-publically traded federal reserve banks.

 

Show me, I read through, and clearly saw a Senator from Wisconsin with his own words opening the report.

It then lists another Senate report, as it's primary source from 1961.

Of course you ran away last time I posted this.

 

omfg no it does not the source listed at the bottom is the websites source not the source of the staff report and if you read the bottom citation of the website that posted the article you will see that it clearly says: "Staff Report," it was not a Senate Report it was submitted by a staffer and it is filled with loads of bull(*)(*)(*)(*), foreigners do not own the fed either directly or indirectly not only can federal reserve stocks not be privately traded but the domestic banks who own the majority of the fed do not have any major foreign shareholders and even if they did (which they don't) the Fed is not controlled by the shareholder domestic banks but by the Presidentially apointed and Senate ratified board of governers. And what would be the point of this anyways as 96% the profits made by the Federal Reserve are handed right to the Federal Treasury whereas only 1.4% is paid as dividends to the member banks.

 

I fully agree with your basic premise, however: There are also many W.A.S.P. shotcallers as well as Catholics and no doubt a few Muslims and Hindus....The Royal Brits, Dutch, and other so called 'royal' ********s, along with several US "gentile" families are just as involved as Jews....War profiteering murderous scums have always hidden behind many different religions.

 

No.

They are merely Goy Toys.

They are rewarded in a material sense, for sure.

But goy toys and traitors they are.

 

I think you are underestimating many co-conspirators and overplaying the Jew angle...Cheers

 

Ok I see the staffer part you are talking about(*Of course I also soo cites over and over from other sources that you do not dispute), but I also see a House Representative's member putting his name on it, and submitting it to public record.

So, would you like to take issue with any specific connection that is made?

Maybe actually quote the study itself, instead of trying to brand, and lable it away?

Huh racist/socialist?

 

No, there are more co conspirators than shot calling top Jews, that is a fact, but the strength is not so much is numbers, but in hierarchy.

 

Liar? Hardly.

You probably aren't aware enough to actually understand that the reports content is taken directly from Mullins book. Essentially its a "book review".

I took a brief look for the website I neglected to add a link to, where it compares the content of the report to Mullins commentary in the book, but couldn't immediately find it. I can't be bothered spending any more time looking for it.

You shouldn't call people liars before you actually know what you are talking about. It makes you look petty, foolish and ten years old.

 

The truth of the flower patch ?

 

where do you come up with all that looney bs?

 

The flower patch is that happy place in your mind that you go to every time reality an your version of the truth conflict ... the place where truth and contradiction can exist in perfect harmony !

 

Only our federal Congress has authority over our official Mint.

 

you must be projecting your own situation

notice how my assertions have been supported by valid references

and yours are just looney bs laid on thick

 

Must be a few Goldman Sachs employees and investors on this thread....

 

Perhaps that's how it is in the tulip patch but it surely is nothing I, or others, have noticed in your posts.

 

the foundation of threads like this consists of criminals, subversives, nut cases and dumb kids

oh please, the lies posted by you and the people you're referring to, have been refuted countless times

 

You seem to take it all very personally....