This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Exploring The Secrets Of The Federal Reserve
And speaking of the Fed's balance sheet (and not the public side but the $9 trillion in off-balance sheet voodoo), here is some good reading, especially with certain politicians hell bent to prevent HR1207 from occurring despite the 280 or so congressmen in support of the proposal (a very self-destructive apathy that Zero Hedge will speak more on in a few days).
»
- 5986 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
TD, is there a way to attach that as a document? I'm getting blocked and just white space there.
that was happening to me, but if you go to a separate web page and make sure you are signed into Scribd, then come over here, it should recognize you so that you can download in PDF.
Interesting; I had never used Scribd - just viewed the docs on whatever site was posting them. Much easier to go make an account and download, thanks.
As for the book, I had used http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm . A little rougher on the eyes than a PDF, to put it mildly.
"Secrets" brought to you by Erza Pound, poet.
Ezra Pound 1945 May 26 mug shot.jpg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ezra_Pound_1945_May_26_mug_shot.jpg
I have this book. I had to obtain it from the UK as the PTB here in the US seemed to have made it impossible to obtain here. I highly suggest reading it!
I checked out every book in my local ( mid-sized city) that was "supposed" to be about the Fed, and only one had an appendix sections from the Federal Reserve Act, and that was from 1930something. The rest were all written by Fed members, or other academics giving the Fed's approved view on why we need the Fed. It was shocking to me.
yeah I think this is crashing my firefox
Much thanks Tyler, I just printed out a hard copy for safe keeping.
I hope you're not relying on mullins who relies on Griffin's Jekyll Isalnd. It is a poorly written and researched piece of fiction.
The Fed has it's faults, there's no need to make things up when discussing the real issues is necessary.
Secrets of the Federal Reserve was written BEFORE "The Creature from Jekyll Island"
Griffin got his cues from Mullins, not the other way around.
Mullins and Pound have gotten the anti-semite smear, but their research for this specific book is factual.
Can you give a couple of examples of what you considered fiction and references to debunk it?
oops! I just saw others have asked the same. I will review.
I hope you're not relying on mullins who relies on Griffin's Jekyll Isalnd. It is a poorly written and researched piece of fiction.
The Fed has it's faults, there's no need to make things up when discussing the real issues is necessary.
as is your comment; perhaps an example or two to support your contention --
Examples are easily found, but are long due to the detail/explaination needed. Here's one:
Let's more closely examine some of Griffin's "facts" in Jekyll Island. G. Edward Griffin, writes:
England was financially exhausted after half a century of war".Unable to increase taxes and unable to borrow, Parliament became desperate for some other way to obtain the money".There were two groups of men who saw a unique opportunity arise out of this necessity. The first group consisted of the political scientists within the government. The second was comprised of the monetary scientists from the emerging business of banking".The two groups came together and formed an alliance. No, that is too soft a word. The American heritage dictionary defines a cabal as "A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers." There is no other word that could so accurately describe this group".The Cabal met in Mercer"s chapel in London and hammered out a seven point plan which would serve their mutual purposes.[35]
Now let's take a look at the accuracy of Griffin's paragraph. His narrative from here almost immediately begins to show serious signs of fabrication. The two groups mentioned, the "monetary scientists" and the "political scientists," never existed. At this point, Griffin has fabricated two historical boogiemen for his reader. There are no historical accounts anywhere that detail a meeting between any two groups that formulated the idea for what would later become the Bank of England. Griffin had to have known this since his main historical source for this passage is R.D. Richards, one of the premiere writers on the Bank of England. In no historical accounts of the era is any credit ever given to other than that of William Paterson alone for the founding of the Bank of England. Of the three standard works on the early history of the Bank of England, Richards is the only one cited in Griffin's bibliography.[36] Richards' text even directly contradicts Griffin"s assertion of a private meeting between two groups that formed the Bank of England:
The Bank was established, under the authority of sixteen sections of the Tunnage Act of 1694, for "the better raising and paying into the Receipt of the Exchequer the sum of Twelve hundred thousand pounds, Part of the sum of fifteen hundred thousand pounds." Their Majesties were authorized to appoint Commissioners to receive subscriptions on, or before, 1st August 1694, by "any person or persons, natives or foreigners, bodies politic or corporate," who, provided the full loan or "a moiety thereof" was subscribed before 1st August 1694, were to be incorporated under the title of "The Governor and Company of the Bank of England."[37]
As you can see, a public subscription for a new joint-stock enterprise has been deliberately twisted into a private meeting of "a conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers." Further, Richards states two pages later:
The Bank's original capital of £1,200,000 was quickly subscribed. Narcissus Luttrell, the diarist of the day, states that the subscription lists were opened in "the Mercer's Chappel" on 21st June 1694; that the Lords of the Treasury "came themselves and subscribed £10,000 for the Queen"; that Sir Robert Howard, the auditor of the Exchequer of Receipt, and his son were responsible for £18,000 and Sir John Houblon for £10,000; that the total of subscriptions for the first day amounted to £300,000, and for the first three days to £600,000, which meant that the subscribers became a corporation, and that by noon on 2nd July the total of £1,200,000 had been completed.[38]
The above is on the very page that Griffin himself cited. Griffin had full knowledge that the meeting at Mercer's Chapel was a public invitation to a subscription list, yet deliberately fabricated otherwise. Further, even if we confine ourselves only to Richards" text which Griffin used, we find quickly that chapter 4 is entitled "Tudor and Stuart banking schemes." Chapter four begins thus:
The petitions, propositions, "humble proposals" and "seasonable observations" appertaining to banks and banking, the earliest of which appeared in England during the Tudor period, increased in number and in volume during the Stuart regime, particularly during the two decades preceding the foundation of the Bank of England. They form an important field of economic literature from which it is evident that a large number of Tudor and Stuart writers fully realised the need of a well-organised credit system. The great expansion of English domestic and overseas trade in the seventeenth century created big financial problems; the many banking schemes which accompanied this expansion give an excellent insight into the wide commercial activities of this important era.[39]
From here Richards" chapter cites literally dozens of banking schemes dating as far back as the sixteenth century. Even Paterson himself was rejected twice before finally submitting a workable concept for a bank. Clapham mentions upwards of "several scores of financial schemes" for a Bank of England,[40] Glyn Davies" text even cites "100 or more schemes for a public bank."[41] It is clear that the founding of the Bank of England was a development dating as far back as the sixteenth century, far from any conspiracy of the late seventeenth century. It is clear as well that Griffin's statement has been fabricated.
You will also note that Griffin mentions a "seven point plan which would serve their mutual purposes." This as well has been fabricated. The accounts of the era never hint of this, and his reference sources for this document are historical narratives of the era written 300 years after the fact, having no relation to a specific document written in the late seventeenth century. Griffin's text all but admits the obvious fabrication in his footnote to the seven point plan, citing an two vague "overviews" rather than a specific document or reference source for the document:
For an overview of these agreements, see Murray Rothbard, The Mystery of Banking (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1983), p. 180. Also Martin Mayer, The Bankers (New York: Weybright & Talley, 1974),pp 24-25.[42]
G. Edward Griffin also stated the following:
The new money created by the Bank of England splashed through the economy like rain in April. The country banks outside of the London area were authorized to create money on their own, but they had to hold a certain percentage of either coin or Bank of England certificates in reserve. Consequently, when these plentiful banknotes landed in their hands, they quickly put them into the vaults and then issued their own certificates in even greater amounts. As a result of this pyramiding effect, prices rose 100% in just two years. Then, the inevitable happened: There was a run on the bank, and the Bank of England could not produce the coin.[43]
With the exception of the last sentence, the entire narrative has been fabricated. Even the hearsay inflation figure of 100%. There were no country banks during the time period in question. Between 1694 (when the Bank began its initial operations) and 1696 (when the first bank run took place) there were several still-born land banks, a "money bank," and two banking schemes that actually came to fruition: The famous Orphans" Bank, and that of the Millions Bank. The former being short-lived, the latter giving up on its banking operations to survive for a century before closing its doors permanently.[44]
There is obviously more, but I hope this suffices.
35) G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island (Appleton: American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 1995) 175, 176
36) Until the twentieth century, there were no major comprehensive historical narratives on the history of the Bank of England. The are now three major works; Clapham, Richards, and Andreades, although Richards was not meant to be a comprehensive work.
37) R. D. Richards, The Early History of Banking in England (London: Frank Cass and Company, Ltd., 1958) 146
38) Richards, p. 148-149
39) Richards, p. 92-93
40) Sir John Clapham, The Bank of England: A History (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945) Vol. 1, p. 1
41) Glyn Davies, A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day (Cardiff: The University of Wales Press, 1994) 254
42) Griffin, p. 176
43) Griffin, 178
44)Sir John Clapham, The Bank of England: A History (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945) Vol. 1, p. 36.
I appreciate the write up: its detail and bibliography.
I would suggest that we focus on The Federal Reserve. Could you provide evidence that defunks the following:
the first 4:30 seconds of the following?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450
sorry I do not have all that info available at my finger tips to write up like you did. But since this is the authors own word it is relevent.
I second this statement. The gentlemen seemed to focus on the BOE and information 300 years ago.
That video is excellent, I previously had the information before, but the way he explains it is excellent.
-Deep Blue
I hope you don't mind, but I'll just focus on the first minute... he says enough there, giving the basis for all his other arguments, that they fall if it falls.
He states, speaking of the Federal Reserve: "It is not a government agency.... it is a cartel."
This is simply an outright lie.
The "Fed" is composed of two basic parts - The ruling Board of Govenors (BOG) and the Regional Banks (NY, SF, Richmond.... all 11 regions.) The Fed is a gov't agency - by any standard. Ask yourself - how many 'public companies' or cartels were
1) Created by an act of Congress,
2) Have it's chief executives hired by an paid by the government, nominated by the President and approved by Congress for a specific term.
3) Have no bonus or incentive compensation and must have all their personal investment in treasury securities or a trust managed indpendently.
4) can't buy or sell their stock, merge, enter into new markets, develop new products etc...
5) Hire government employees from the gov't employment service,
6)Are listed under the White House as an agency
7) Have their phone numbers listed in the blue pages under "Federal Government)
8) have a .gov website (limited by law to US government agencies)
9)Have federal protection (as the gov't) from tort lawsuits under the Tort Liability Act (Lewis vs. the US) and is restricted to only buying and selling US government securities, and can issue no debt on it's own, but only as the agent for the US Treasury offerings.
10) When sued, are listed as 'The United States' and defended by attorneys from The Department of Justice
11) It funnels over 97% of it's profits to the US Treasury, keeping only enough to pay expenses.
You get the idea... by any standard, the same as the CIA, FTC, FDIC... here is the government agency listing and it shows/links to the Federal Reserve system:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/F.shtml
What confuses the simpletons is that the Regionals accept/require members, who may actually vote on a President of the Regional, but it's a President with no real executive power to do or influence anything. He is simply the head administrator. All Federally chartered banks are REQUIRED to be members and any state chartered bank who wants to access the discount window must be a member. I don't believe it's necessary to access the Federal Funds system. But the members can't change anything about the regionals - their membership, their payout (they get a small dividend on the capital they place with the Regional), the markets, the regs - anything. In one section of the act this is called "stock" and Griffin/Mullins take this word - devoid of context, and assume it's the same equity ownership as in private corporations. It's a term, a misnomer if you will, b/c there is no equity interest or control. The bank can never sell it (unless it quits banking), or increase/decrease it's 'stock'. It is a function of it's percentage of capital.
In addition, regardless of how much capital it places with the Fed, it's vote doesn't change. Each bank gets one vote. So a bank that puts in $10,000 in capital gets the same vote as one that puts in $1million. Does that sound like equity to you?
it does to Griffin and his zombies. Griffin also goes on to say certain individuals or foreigners own stock in the Fed, controlling it or siphoning off profits.. This is another lie, patently false. Only banks who do business in America own the stock, and it's still a matter of their captial. No individual has ever owned stock in the Fed. Again, using the term 'stock' loosely here. Their dividend is the same as all other member banks.
Kinda brief, but I hope that helps.
The Federal Reserve is a privately held corporation, and operates "as" a government agency, but still, a privately held corporation. This company is comrised of 300 shares only, and our Congress can revoke the Federal Reserve Act and purchase back the 300 shares any day they decide that our country deserves to survive and thrive, instead of having a massive monopoly run all politicians, and as such our nation.
Fed advocates talk about the complex structure of the Fed's organization as a red herring distracting from the fact that it is a privately held corporation, and the owners spend alot of money to keep that VERY private...
Quite simply you are wrong. The fed is not privately held and there are not only 300 shares... Read my 10 or 11 points and tell me what your defination of "private" is or tell me another 'private' company that has the same factors in common.
There are approximately 6,000 members - including every federally chartered bank and most state chartered bank. They all get the same vote and dividend on their capital.
This simpleton doesn't buy what you're selling. Thanks to the Internet and the ability to research facts through a myriad of sources, instead of just having to take someone's word for it.
Sorry Judge, 10& 11 are just lovely little red flags away from the truth. Yes, the privately held ( more like "guarded at all costs truth" of it's being privately held) Federal Reserve has the ability to operate under the Federal Reserve Act, but, take that away, and revoke the ability of this private company to reap their gradual sucking of value from the US$ and we'll all be better off.
#11--yes, "MOST" profits get rebated back to the US Treasury, but with the size of this monopoly, even a small percentage is a fortune, and this is raked in year after year, effectively extracting value from the US$. And bank"bailout" is bonanza time for this entity since their profits retained have much to do with the size of member bank reserves.
SURE, the X-Enron lobbyist will advise this cartel to hurry up and start pumping out propaganda that makes the public know that 100% of the profits now, are going back to treasury--but it is just too late for tricks--as long as this private company has the authority to profit from their activities, and then set monetary policy to help all their investments which by now some speculate 50% of the DOW, we are all getting fleeced by what is the world's biggest monopoly and insider trading operation.
Careful folks, our anonymous friend might be the x-enron lobbyist hired by the Fed in May...
Judge I hope you have an oppourtunity to see this. It looks like while I was away I missed some dialogue. I appreciate the detail of your position or argument. I see Agrotera and Gilgamesh did a fine job in my absence.
I think Mr. Greenspan elequently speaks to your position that The Fed is a goverment agency:
http://www.savevid.com/video/greenspan-admits-the-federal-reserve-is-private.html
I understand that when our belief systems are challenged it is difficult to let them go without a fight. Take a deep breath and truely open your mind.
I would encourage you to watch the rest of the Griffen Video. He addresses many of the items in your argument.
Nevertheless, it's interesting for historical reasons, and adds lore to the legend of Martin A. Armstrong, supposedly another victim of machiavellian deceit: http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm
Required reading, IMO.
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Too funny...
Martin just released a new paper, How ALL Systems can Collapse Overnight
http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/martin-armstrong-how-all-system...
Thank you for the book, I was looking for this.
A bit of the ol' Illuminati Conspiracy. Not very trustworthy, same as the Da Vinci Code.
When Mullins is using "THE CURSE OF CANAAN" I'm starting to be skeptic.
That sounds alot like Goldman, is that you guys again?
Well you are probably right Ben I mean #20618
Surely there is a mass conspiracy against a mass conspiracy...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Our fault we will all just go back to work now thinking everything is fine....
This is the best video I have ever watched on the Fed.
Why don't they play this on the History Channel - I know the answer.
Uhh...I see nothing, can you repost?
Tyler, since the moment Nixon resigned, the one thing that Americans have embraced is self destructive apathy.
I have not read this whole book. I have read certain parts. It reminded me of some strange piece of Goebbels like propaganda.
I suggest reading the section ( Jekyll Island ) titled Pessimistic Outcome (or is it scenario-don't have it handy as it's on loan to someone) and tell us how far we are from it...other than actual mass protests and daily bank runs we are not very far.
MS
bingo
A friend just gave me a copy of this book. Is it worth the read?
Creature From Jekyll Island? Yes, most of it.
Some of the stuff about the Fed causing wars is a bit out there, but overall the book makes some interesting points.
Much more useful read than any of the BS books out there today giving a post-mortem on the crash, like we are even through the crash.
Thanks for the reply. I will start reading it tomorrow on my vacation.
Beware TD - You are going to invite the sceptre of anti-semitism going down any path Ezra Pound travelled on..Unless of course you are ok with that - dont put the signal at risk with all the noise...please.
Let's let the facts speak for themselves and leave scare tactics for the tv show. Your argument is the same argument used to first defend and deflect investigations into Bernie Madoff and the NJ Rabbi selling organs. A weak mind would be automatically redirected to dismiss any concept by the mere suggestion that it be racist, anti-semitic, etc. Bloggers at this site are too smart for that. In fact, I would argue that Bernie Madoff and the NJ Rabbi hocking organs are the real anti-semites.
Jewish people run hollywood according to a jewish columnist in L.A. Times, in his own words:
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish."
That's in Hollywood. What about Finance? - ever hear of these individuals - George Soros, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Lloyd Blankfein, Richard Fuld, Larry Kudlow, Tim Geithner, Rothschild, Barney Frank, Rupert Murdoch (TV finance), etc.
Or this link, from a Jewish author stating that roughly 90% on the list of the 100 most influential people are Jewish: http://judicial-inc.biz/10_12_vanity_fair_jewish.htm
I just want to be clear that many Jewish people are highly successful and should be proud of their accomplishments. Because of the tyranny of a few people, it would be a mistake of logic to apply the part to the whole (surprise not 100% of any race, gender, or religion are good people). At the same time, we should ensure a system that is fair to all based on merit and does not in any way favor one group over another - that is called discrimination and can apply to religion, color, race, and gender.
-Zero Hedge Fight Club Defense League
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Security Error Loading Document info: 'Error #2048'
Can anyone who saw the material that was posted explain what information it contained?
Looks like Scribd server is down. should be back up shortly
i'm not saying there isnt some truth in this book. but the author is a complete crazy person. durden, you make yourself look really dumb when you put any material up from someone who spouts utter nonsense like eustace
check this out "israel plans to exterminate every muslim in the world, and the muslims know this" ...this guy is nuts. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644857907453201814
Tyler, if you'll email me, I'll send you info (kinda long), footnoted, on the historical errors, lies and deceptions in the book.
it is truely a propagandish work of fiction.
Judge, post the information on scribd or some like format, I'd like to see the refutations. This book and ZH are what finally forced me to alter the way I look at charts. Thanks.
Another book by Mullins is called "The Curse of Caanan" unfortunately I can't find that one online.... it goes much further back. Curious bi-line.... "Secrets of the Temple" is also the title of a book on Jewish Rabbi's.... I wonder if that's not a deliberate slander.
Ron Paul video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edGB35_Wbd8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fearth2obama%2Eorg%2F&feature=player_embedded
Thanks for posting the original version TD ;)
Secrets of the Federal Reserve was written BEFORE "The Creature from Jekyll Island"
Griffin got his cues from Mullins, not the other way around.
Mullins and Pound have gotten the anti-semite smear, but their research for this specific book is factual.
Anon (whichever one) is correct, Mullins did the original research in the library of congress... plus check your publication dates, easy enough to tell for yourself. Even worse is Greider's "Secrets of The Temple" which was the Fed backed publication.... i.e. the easy way to control the release of information in a conspiracy theory is to make the "facts" match the lies.
Bernanke's Collectivism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff307.html
Forget about Jekyll Island and all the rest. The Federal Reserve is a central bank, a violation of the Constitution. All central banks comprise the Bank of International Settlements, which wants a one world currency.
A one world currency means that all nations lose control of their sovereignity because they can no longer print their own money to escape debt imposed by foreign powers. That's why the ability to control currency is one of the Articles of the Constitution because the Founders knew about indebtness to the Crown.
How it started and what happen is not as important as all central banks being hostile to their nations, and work against the benefit of free societies.
Down with Hamilton, up with Jefferson!
The Bank of the United States, snorted President Andrew Jackson, was a "monster," a "hydra-headed" monster, a monster equipped with horns, hoofs, and tail and so dangerous that it impaired "the morals of our people," corrupted "our statesmen," and threatened "our liberty."
And thus it came to be that the Bank's charter was vetoed. That in spite the fact the Bank under Biddle was actually acting to restrain unbridled speculation and improvident wildcat state banks, made no impression on a movement in search of a scapegoat for its fears. All these emotions became only more intense when the panic of 1837 leveled the economy.
As they say, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it... then again, maybe we're condemned to repeat it regardless.
Amen, stick to the facts for example that the Fed is an independent corporation that does not answer to any authority!
Thomas Jefferson warned of the central bank evils 1791:
"If the American People allows private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up and around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
Hamilton was hardly oblivious to the dangers of speculation. A thin and wavering line separated the productive use of the funded debt from sheer financial recklessness, and he was worried: "There is at the present juncture a certain fermentation of mind, a certain activity of speculation and enterprise which if properly directed may be made subservient to useful purposes; but which if left entirely to itself, may be attended with pernicious effects." Responding to his critics, he acknowledge to Washington that speculation and stockjobbing "...fosters a spirit of gambling, and diverts a certain number of individuals from other pursuits."
What Hamilton hated most of all, however, was inert capital. It might be locked up by hidebound, antifederalist agrarians habitually averse to venturing into the unkown. Or it might be rendered sterile by speculators who stayed away from long-term manufacturing or other risky forms of productive enterprise, seeking more purely and quickly to make money out of money. Given the country's paucity of "active wealth," of "moneyed capital," and the overriding importance of the public credit to the life of any modern naition, to its military security, its spirit of enterprise, its internal improvement, its commerce and manufacturing, Hamilton was prepared to swallow his reservations about the dangers of speculation and borrowed capital. Theorists of economic history might characterize the treasury secretary's strategic thinking as a classic case of "financie-led modernization." Profit making came in a distant second in these calculations to what really mattered to Hamilton: the future fame, glory, and power of the new Americna nation-state.
From "Every Man a Speculator, A History of Wall Street in American Life" by Steve Fraser, Harper Perennial (2006).
This is funniest thing I've read in a long time. Loved the foreword and how this volume takes part in a "literary" tradition, just because pre-psycho-ward Pound had a cup of coffee with some famous writers during the teens and 20s. I guess spelling Mr. Eliot's name correctly isn't part of the tradition.
I mean, really. Really?
Yep, it's all redux... Read "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair from which the movie "There Will Be Blood" was inspired. Not necessarily well written, but there are gems of insight into the context of that time (in which Erza lived).
Long live the oil men, bankers, and Bolsheviks!
Dear Mr. [Zeppelin]:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009.
I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As a United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts on this important issue in mind when the Senate considers this or related issues during the 111th Congress.
The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing.
Dear Mr. [Zeppelin]:
Thank you for taking time to contact me with your thoughts on S. 604, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 was introduced by Senator Bernard Sanders. This bill would establish an audit of the Federal Reserve by the Comptroller General to provide greater transparency on its activities. The Comptroller General would report the findings to Congress and present legislative recommendations as appropriate.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, of which I am not a member. Should the legislation come before the Senate for consideration, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator