Did Trump just nationalise the Federal Reserve?
by Alexandra Bruce
Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) devised by the Trump Administration will enable the Treasury to finance his $2 trillion Coronavirus stimulus package WITHOUT INTEREST.
Where did Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison find $130 billion at the drop of a hat to fund the Coronavirus economic stimulus package for struggling Australia?
The video ‘The Goldfish Report’ on forbiddenknowledgetv.net is the most informative yet about the world monetary system.
NESARA, which stands for the National Economic Security and Recovery Act was conceived by Harvey Francis Bernard, who held a doctorate in Systems Theory that he applied to economics.
On his deathbed in 2005, Harvey Bernard heard claims about NESARA and denied NESARA had been enacted into law.
But here’s where it gets REALLY crazy: The title of Bernard’s NESARA proposal is Draining the Swamp: Monetary and Fiscal Policy Reform.
One of Trump’s top three slogans is associated with all of the craziness above – and we are living it now!
Godfather of the Rothschild banking cartel, Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
In a recent Bloomberg article, ‘The Fed’s Cure Risks Being Worse than the Disease’, Jim Bianco explains what is now happening with the Federal Reserve Bank in their response to the coronavirus. He writes, “This scheme essentially merges the Fed and Treasury into one organization, so meet your new Fed Chairman, Donald J Trump.”
Did President Trump just nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank?
On June 4th, 1963, President John F Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110, which many believe was an effort to transfer power from the Federal Reserve Bank to the United States Department of the Treasury by replacing Federal Reserve notes with silver certificates, thereby taking the power away from the international banking cartels. Less than six months later, President Kennedy was assassinated and his move against the Fed was reversed.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln printed $400 million worth of Greenbacks, a debt-free, interest-free money, independent of international bank control. In response, the London Times wrote that, “If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic should become indurated down to a fixture then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
The bankers were not willing to lose power and the Bank of England went on to fund the Confederacy. Weeks prior to Lincoln’s assassination, assassin John Wilkes Booth spent time in Montreal, known as the “Confederate capital of Canada” and was found after the assassination with a banknote from Ontario Bank. Booth’s personal manager, was banker, Joseph Simonds. After Lincoln was killed, power was restored to the international banking cartel.
The National Economic Security and Recovery Act, known as NESARA was a set of proposed economic reforms suggested during the 1990s by Harvey Francis Bernard. Bernard created the NESARA proposal during the late 1980s. He sent copies to members of Congress but was ignored. In 2001, he established the NESARA Institute and published the second edition of his book in 2005, re-titling it, ‘Draining the Swamp: The NESARA Story Monetary and Fiscal Policy Reform’.
The policies included replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax, abolishing compound interest on unsecured loans and returning to a “bimetallic currency” (gold and silver), which he claimed would result in zero percent inflation and a more stable economy.
There is a big buzz on the Internet that President Trump is implementing this plan. There is also speculation that this is part of a huge global economic reset, GESARA to be decided at the international World Court of The Hague. If this is true, certainly this decision has been decided years ago and we are just now feeling the effects.
The Coronavirus scare is beginning to look like a false alarm but the reaction is looking just like a false flag and it seems that when we come out the other end of this the world will be different.
Please go to these videos at forbiddenknowledgetv.net and support the author by hitting the donate button on their site.
from CEC, Melbourne
After ramming his $10,000 cash ban law through the House of Representatives last week, Scott Morrison is now trying to pretend he has responded to concerns about his cash ban, by releasing a set of “rules” that exempt many activities from the ban.
(This legislation is yet to clear the senate.Ed)
Shane Wright reported in the 28 October Sydney Morning Herald: “The Morrison government has sought to head off internal and crossbench anger over plans to forbid cash payments of $10,000 or more, outlining a string of exclusions it says will protect those who still want to use notes and cents.
“Rules governing new laws around large cash payments make it clear they will exclude gifts, private transactions such as used car sales and situations where people have no other way to pay but via cash.”
It is not true that Morrison is softening the law with these rules. They were always planned to be attached to the law, as a ploy to make the ban initially more acceptable.
The problem is that all the rules providing exemptions to the cash ban are in a separate legislative instrument, and not in the bill itself. This means that the Minister can change the rules at any time, without a vote in Parliament. While the Parliament can disallow the Minister’s changes, it has a strict time limit on doing so, which limits the ability of the public to have a say in the changes and gives the Minister the advantage in making changes.
In other words, the rules are not real protections at all, but exemptions that can be temporary, and easily removed to make the ban more draconian.
The bill itself, which does require a parliamentary vote to change, is an absolute ban on all transactions over $10,000.
Even the ‘myths’ are lies
Demonstrating how disingenuous the government is being over this law, Treasury has issued a “Fact Sheet—addressing the myths about the cash payment limit”.
The so-called “myths” listed in the fact sheet have nothing to do with the main objections to the law.
The Government’s “myths” are:
- Cash cannot be used for everyday transactions.
- Family members cannot give cash gifts.
- Private individuals cannot buy or sell second-hand goods using cash.
- People are required to store money in the bank.
- People are no longer able to deposit or withdraw cash from their bank account.
- The Government can amend the Bill for the cash limit without scrutiny by the Senate.
In denying all these claims, the government fails to mention that they are only false because they are exempted under the rules, which can be changed at any time. They are not exempted in the legislation, which requires a Parliamentary vote to change. As independent researcher Melissa Harrison from exposingtheblackeconomyreport.com asked: “Why is the government not being upfront about this?”
The government’s fact sheet doesn’t address the main objections to the law, because the government cannot answer them. They prove the government’s excuses for this law to be false.
The government claims the cash ban is necessary to eliminate the black economy and reduce tax evasion.
In truth, as proven by studies of the global black economy by Leandro Medina and Friedrich Schneider published by the IMF, Australia doesn’t have a serious black economy problem; the black economy we do have is already shrinking without any cash ban, having halved since 1991; and comparable countries with cash restrictions have much bigger black economies.
As for tax evasion, it is false to blame tax evasion on individuals using cash. Real tax evasion is perpetrated on a massive scale by multinational corporations and banks, and ultra-rich individuals, using the Big Four global accounting firms and the global network of offshore tax havens. This is how Netflix can pay less than $500,000 tax in Australia, on revenue of almost a billion dollars. It is especially outrageous that this cash ban was recommended by a former global boss of one of the Big Four accounting firms, KPMG, which is up to its ears in real tax evasion, and that KPMG is already lobbying to reduce the limit from $10,000 to $2,000.
It is now proven that the real reason for the cash ban, which the government doesn’t want to acknowledge, is not a “conspiracy theory”, but is a recommendation from the IMF which can be read in black and white: cash must be restricted to make negative interest rates work. Countries all over the world are either at negative interest rates or close to, and the IMF has recommended cash restrictions to trap people in banks so they are forced to pay the banks to look after their money.
Another reason to trap people in banks is so they cannot escape “bail-in”, which is when deposits are seized to prop up failing banks.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie cited this evidence, including the need to ban cash to make negative interest rates work, in his speech in Parliament on 24 October opposing the cash ban. He also proved that the government is not interested in really eliminating money laundering, as it has ignored Wilkie’s evidence of money laundering at Crown Casino. Most importantly, Wilkie made the point that the government has all the laws it needs to crack down on the real black economy, it just doesn’t enforce them.
The government is trying to dodge the issue because of the huge backlash it has received against this law, which has sparked a mutiny even within its own Liberal Party ranks. We must keep the heat on!
What you can do:
Political evolution is over – only revolution remains
Merchant Bank Goldman Sach’s Australian Parliamentary representative Malcolm Turnbull is considering overturning media cross ownership laws for media moguls Murdoch and Fairfax in return for favourable treatment given to the Liberal Party during the federal election.
Turnbull told ABC Radio he was not opposed to the changes saying he could understand the frustration of American national Rupert Murdoch not being able to own a newspaper and television station in the same capital city.
Cairns News warns there is so little media diversification in capital cities and regional towns that consumers have been conditioned for more than two decades into thinking that by reading a Murdoch or Fairfax newspaper or watching a Foxtel TV program they have been kept abreast with the ‘news’.
Fortunately the internet has brought much needed diversification to national consumers that many readers are now dumping hard copy newspapers instead switching to independent internet news bulletins.
For example if one reads a Murdoch article about the ‘marvellous’ US President Barrack Obama and then reads a similar story on CLG net news, one could be forgiven for asking the News Ltd reporter why he omitted to mention the open hostility and derision in which Obama is held by a vast majority of American people.