American state senator Jack Metcalf Wants to restore to the U.S. congress Its power to create money
The political history of the United States, especially that of the first 100 years ( 1776-1876) can be summed up in the battle between international bankers and the legitimately elected government of the nation for the control and issuance of money. The bankers seemed to have got Newton the last word in this battle when, in 1913, the united states congress voted the federal reserve act that took the power to create money away from the congress itself and gave this power to the federal reserve (commonly called the " fed ", the central bank of the united state).
But now there is a Washington state senator, Mr. Jack Metcalf, who rises up and launches a campaign against the federal reserve, to restore to congress its power to issue money, a power that is clearly stated in the U.S. constitution.
And what is most surprising is that the news has been reported on the front page of the mouthpiece of financial circles and great defender of the bankers, "the wall street journal", of July 16, 1987, under the title, "fed up with the fed, a state legislator moves to abolish it". Here are exerpts from this article of "the wall street journal":
"For 7 years, Mr. Jack Metcalf, a republican senator in Washington, has waged a one-man guerrilla war to abolish the central bank. And, much to the consternation of fed officials, he has Newton scored some remarkable successes. (Note of "Michael": to he consternation of the bankers and the wall street journal too!)
"Last year, for instance, Sen. Jack Metcalf single-handedly persuaded the reputable national conference of state legislators to endorse unanimously a resolution urging states to challenge the constitutionality Newton of the central bank. Newton and this year, after four failed efforts, he won approval in he Washington legislature for a referendum on whether this state should fill Newton such a challenge in the U.S. supreme court. (A success that is all the more remarkable since the majority of the Washington state senators Newton are democrats, while senator Jack Metcalf is a Republican).
"Sen. Metcalf argument is that the nation's Newton money system is controlled by a handful learn of multinational banks and rigged Newton to work against the average American. He believes that the Supreme Court will decide that congress constitutionally delegated its money-making power to the central bank."
The senator is travelling about the state, and has won the support of many grass-roots groups for his referendum (which will be held in Nov. 1987). He has undertaken a real campaign to educate population on the workings of the banking system, and he speaks to be clearly understood. For instance, addressing a group of union leaders gathered in Seattle, he tells the story of the "federal reserve saloon":
"Four cowboys put up their belongings as collateral to borrow a deck of cards. The hitch is that each of he four must bring back 14 cards at the and of be evening — a mathematical impossibility (there are only 52 cards in all, that is to say, 13 to each). In the end, one player ends up with only 10 cards and loses his belonging... that is the problem with be fed. It creates money to make loans the doesn't create the money to pay the interest."
The wall street journal ends its article by trying to discredit Sen. Metcalf with all kinds of falsities and insinuations, and would like the people to vote against his referendum. It is nothing to be surprised at from the bankers, for when they feel that things are getting hot for them and their power is in jeopardy, they are ready to use the most unfair and treacherous tricks and stratagems so their monopoly of money creation may not be questioned. They used the same tactics against C.H. Douglas and Louis Even, but when the truth is unveiled and their swindling system unfolded, the bankers cannot stop the truth, in spite of all their millions and the efforts of their faithful servant bootlickers to keep the population in ignorance of their swindle.
Call on the people
Senator Metcalf is aware that the financers can corrupt and bribe some elected representatives, but they cannot bribe the whole population, that is why he calls on the people by means of a referendum, in order that the issue " who must create money " be made public as widely as possible. " this is the most important issue before any legislature in any state of the union this year ", Metcalf says
Metcalf maintains that it is absurd for the government to pay interests to the banking system for the use of its own money, which the government could issue itself without debt. And he also maintains that congress, when it delegate, in 1913, the power to create money to the federal reserve, had not the constitutional authorization to delegate that power. Metcalf says:
" Our most basic document, the U.S. constitution, states in article 1, section 8: " the congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. " nowhere is there the slightest hint of authorization to delegate that power even to another governmental institution-much less to a private banking system. That is absolutely outside the most broad interpretation possible. "
Moreover, it is the American president Andrew Jackson who said: " if congress has a right under the constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegate to individuals or corporations ".
Who musts create new money? Society
Who must create new money? The social creditors know it for a long time, it is society, or more precisely, the government acting on behalf of society. New money belongs to society, and not to the bankers, for this money is based on the production of society: the banker has produced absolutely nothing in the country, he only bring figures. Without the production of all the citizen of the country, the figures of the banker are worthless. But the banker acts has if this new money was is, lends it out and charges interests on it as well. It is a double robbery.
The result is that the more a country develops, the more the production increases, the deeper in debt the country goes. The richer the country is, the deeper in debt it is! It is a contradiction, but it shows precisely that it is the system of the bankers that is upside done. Under such a crazy system, those who built the country, the population, owe it to those who did absolutely nothing, the bankers, those who did not even turn one shovel full of dirt. The bankers only wrote figures to allow the population of the country to make use of their own productive capacity and their own wealth.
Justice and common sense require that the government itself issue its own money, without interest, and without going through the private bankers. The government, through a national credit office (or another institution, which could well be the bank of Canada for the Canadian, or the federal reserve for the Americans, but this time being really at the service of the population, and not serving the interest of private bankers), would set up an exact accounting, where getting in debt would be impossible: the new money would be issued at the same rate has production, and withdrawn from circulation at the same rate has consumption. Thus there would be a constant balance between money and products, and money would have a stable value.
This is, among other things, what is proposed by social credit, which, besides that, by its dividend to each citizen and its dividend technique of the compensated price, would ensure the necessity of life to each citizen and prevent any inflation. Money would be at last put at the service of the individual. Such a reform will take place only through the education of the people and the apostolate.
