Failed Empire

Chronicling the collapse of a failed society

Bernie Sanders: Federal Reserve Provided $26 Billion to Central Bank of Libya

Senator Bernie Sanders continues his admirable vendetta against the dubious Federal Reserve:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today questioned why the Federal Reserve provided more than $26 billion in credit to an Arab intermediary for the Central Bank of Libya.

“It is incomprehensible to me that while creditworthy small businesses in Vermont and throughout the country could not receive affordable loans, the Federal Reserve was providing tens of billions of dollars in credit to a bank that is substantially owned by the Central Bank of Libya,” Sanders said.

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others, Sanders asked why the central bank made at least 46 emergency, low-interest loans to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Central Bank of Libya owns a 59 percent stake.

This, of course, is an addition to previously secret Federal Reserve bailouts of various multi-billion dollar corporations like McDonald’s and Verizon, along with  two European megabanks.  The Federal Reserve is clearly a shady organization.  It exists in a shadowy realm on the periphery of government and business, and it is unclear what exactly its roles are, and with whom its allegiances lie.  Most Americans know little about the organization; views range from one of complete indifference to detailed conspiracy theories involving the influential Rothschilds and the mysterious Bilderberg Group.

Why is there so much secrecy surrounding the Federal Reserve?  Why does the public know so little about it, and why does the media do such a poor job covering it?  The Federal Reserve is generally presented as being an entity of the government – its name certainly applies as much.  In reality, the Federal Reserve is a private organization, comprised of shadowy alliances between the country’s – and now, undoubtedly, the world’s – largest banks.  Apart from its symbolic figurehead, the United States government – and therefore, the American people – have absolutely no say in its operations.  So why exactly does the Federal Reserve exist?  What purpose is it intended to serve?

The very history of the Federal Reserve is contentious.  It was created by a last second piece of legislation that passed mere days before Christmas, when most elected officials had returned home for the holidays.  The legislation created the Federal Reserve out of nothing, and granted it the sole right to print money for the United States.  Prior to this, the U.S. government printed its own money, but with the creation of the Federal Reserve, that privilege had been passed into private hands.  Bankers  had tried for generations to obtain this coveted right, but they were not successful until this financial coup of 1913.

The ramifications of this are more extensive and drastic than most people imagine.  Perhaps the most dangerous consequence was the notion that our currency was now irrevocably bogged with debt.  The Federal Reserve created our money out of nothing, but then “lent” this money to the U.S. government at interest.  It is not hard to realize that, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for the U.S. to ever climb its way out from this debt.  In short, the Federal Reserve guaranteed that we were eternally indebted to them, thus guaranteeing indefinite and unprecedented profits.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is one of only a few elected officials in history to have the courage to openly question the actions of the Federal Reserve, and as a result of his heroic actions, troubling revelations are coming to the public eye.  But Sanders hasn’t yet gone far enough, as these realizations only scratch the surface of just how far-reaching the actions of the Federal Reserve, and how contrary they are to the interests of ordinary Americans.

Why was the Federal Reserve providing money to the Central Bank of Libya (which was then loaned back to the U.S. Treasury through the purchase of U.S. bonds)?  Is it a coincidence that we are now involved in military operations there?  The fact that we even have to ask such a question is evidence enough that we know far too little about this organization that holds such sway over the U.S. – and, indeed, world – economy, and it is imperative that we start learning.


4 responses to “Bernie Sanders: Federal Reserve Provided $26 Billion to Central Bank of Libya

  1. business April 5, 2011 at 9:23 am

    ..In 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act ..was fraudulently pushed through Congress Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated ..This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth….When the President ..signs this Act the invisible government by the money power ..proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation will be legalized….The new will create inflation whenever the trust wants inflation….From now on ..depression will be scientifically created…IS ..THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK REALLY FEDERAL?..Most people assume that the Federal ..Reserve Bank is federal–that is part of the united States government. ..However the Ninth Circuit Court put that issue to rest in 1982 when they ..adjudicated ..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. The Federal Reserve ..Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks.

    • Bill May 12, 2011 at 6:29 pm

      Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) questioned why the Federal Reserve provided more than $26 billion in credit to an Arab intermediary for the Central Bank of Libya.

      The question he failed to ask is why does most of the congress members support Restructuring Local Government by means of “privatization” of the government.


      The United States was originally created as a Constitutional Republic, however it has gradually became a Corporate Republic. ______Some of our elected officials in the legislature have taken it upon themselves to redefine the definition (meaning) of the United States from being a Constitutional Republic to that of a Federal Corporation.

      TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002
      (15) “United States” means—
      (A) a Federal corporation;
      (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
      (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

      We, the people, need to take a good look at the difference of how a Constitutional Republic and a Corporate Republic is structured and then take a good look at how congress has been governing this country lately.

      Constitutional Republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican

      Corporate Republic is a theoretical form of government occasionally hypothesized in works of science fiction, though some historical nations such as medieval Florence might be said to have been governed as corporate republics. While retaining some semblance of republican government, a corporate republic would be run primarily like a business, involving a board of directors and executives. Utilities, including hospitals, schools, the army, and the police force, would be privatized. The social welfare function carried out by the state is instead carried out by corporations in the form of benefits to employees. Although corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism. In such works, they usually arise when a single, vastly powerful corporation deposes a weak government, over time or in a coup d’état.

      Note the words “privatized” (privatization) and “unbridled capitalism” they are a key part of a corporate republic.

      Next time one watches the news , one should actually note how many times our elected official use the words the government is to large. The government needs to turn over most of its agencies to the private sector. In other words government should be privatized. ________________________________________________________________________

      Restructuring Local Government


      “Privatization is a worldwide phenomenon. In recent years all levels of government, seeking to reduce costs, have begun turning to the private sector to provide some of the services that are ordinarily provided by government. The spread of the privatization movement is grounded in the fundamental belief that market competition in the private sector is a more efficient way to provide these services and allows for greater citizen choice. In practice, however, concerns about service quality, social equity, and employment conditions raise skepticism of privatization. In New York State, labor concerns are also a major issue. Although empirical studies do not provide clear evidence on the costs and benefits of privatization, public perception and pressure for improved government efficiency will keep privatization on the government agenda…“
      (RE: Cornell University.)

      What does quasi-governmental agencies have to do with government and the private sector?

      Congress created agencies under a new form of government within the government known as the quasi-government. Congress gave these agencies ‘quasi- legislative’ and/or ‘quasi-judicial’ powers as well as autonomy in operations, in order to allow these agencies to breach the private sector as a matter of principle rather than by law.

      CRS Report for Congress Order Code RL30533

      “…Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle….” (summary)

      How is quasi-government defined?

      “…CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RL30533 The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics Updated April 26, 2005…”

      What is the definition of quasi-legislative and/or quasi-judicial?

      Legal Dictionary

      Main Entry: quasi–legislative
      Function: adjective
      : of, relating to, or being an administrative act, body, or procedure that is concerned with the promulgation of rules and regulations or the adoption of laws, charters, or orders and that is based on authority derived from the legislature by statute quasi–legislative decisions — In re Investigation of Unfair Election Practice Objections , 451 North Western Reporter, Second Series 49 (1990
      “[J]udicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are defined broadly to include all kinds of truth-seeking proceedings, including administrative, legislative and other official proceedings.”

      What did the Attorney General say about ‘quasi- legislative’ and/or ‘quasi-judicial’ agencies?

      The Attorney General has stated:
      Agencies have no inherent lawmaking powers. They are not creatures of the Constitution. . . . This means we should abandon the idea that there are such things as ‘quasi- legislative’ or ‘quasi-judicial’ functions that can be properly delegated to independent agencies or bodies. . . .
      . . . [F]ederal agencies performing executive functions are themselves properly agents of the executive. They are not ‘quasi’ this, or ‘independent’ that.

      Address by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Federal Bar Association, Detroit, Mich. (Sept. 13, 1985). The Justice Department took a similar position in litigation over the constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. See Brief for United States at 44-51, Bowsher v. Synar, 106 S. Ct. 3181 (1986) (No. 85-1377).

      What did the founding fathers say about autonomy in operations (autonomous governance.)?

      The framers of our Constitution warned that if legislative power were combined with executive power, or if legislative power were combined with judicial power, our republic would become an oligarchy and the rights of the people would be sacrificed to achieve the selfish ends of those who govern.
      Madison wrote, “(the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one , few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Typically of the Federalists who advocated ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained that the separation of powers was “itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” It would deny a single department autonomous governance. It would keep abuse of power in check by humbling those in government with the need to satisfy the dictates of competing power centers.

      What does quasi-governmental agencies have to do with Privatization of the Federal Government?

      Quasi governmental entities may be viewed as a form of privatization because they are substitutes for fully governmental agencies. They are private vehicles for achieving a governmentally declared good. Policymakers have been attracted to quasi governmental entities for a number of reasons, including the popular perception that the private sector is more efficient than government and budgetary constraints (i.e., quasi governmental entities usually are off-budget.)

      Report for Congress Order Code RL33777
      Privatization and the Federal Government

      Government agencies, unlike private firms, usually operate under complex accountability hierarchies that include multiple and even conflicting goals. Federal agencies, for example, are subject to the corpus of federal management laws. These laws serve as means for keeping executive branch agencies accountable to Congress, the President, and the public.95 They also embody principles of democratic justice, such as the allowance for public participation and government transparency. To name just a few, the general management laws include the following:

      ! the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), which provides persons the right to
      request information about government operations;

      ! the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), which prescribes the process
      for agency rulemaking (i.e., interpretation and operationalization of law) , public
      participation in this process, and judicial review of rules; and

      ! the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)), which requires agencies to hold
      open meetings and provide public notice thereof.

      Thus, in shifting an activity from the governmental to the private sector, the nature of government oversight is transformed.96 As the components of government provision of goods and services are privatized, the jurisdiction of federal management laws, Congress, the President, and the courts is reduced.

      Moreover, privatization shifts government administrative management from implementation to oversight as hierarchical oversight may be replaced by contractual relationships. Government oversight of privatized government activities, or “third- party government,” on a large scale is a recent phenomenon and one that many federal administrators and public administration scholars have found vexatious.97

      Finally, the entire question — “What constitutes governmental action and what constitutes private action?” — becomes ambiguous when activities once carried out by officers of the federal government are replaced by private persons. The Constitution requires “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, [to] be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support [the] Constitution.” (Article IV, Cl. 3) Contractor and subcontractors, though, need not take such an oath….”

      Behavior of the Entity
      “The difference between having a governmental entity and a private firm perform an activity is significant. Privatization moves components of the provision of goods and services out of the governmental sector and into the private sector. These two sectors are not identical. As the National Academy of Public Administration noted, In point of fact, there are some fundamental differences between the [governmental and private sectors] …. Most basic, perhaps, is the [government’s] distinctive claim to exercise sovereignty, to enact and enforce binding laws, and to act on behalf of the nation or the community in certain constitutionally prescribed ways. . . .”


      ***The federal reserve banks are independent quasi -governmental agencies***

      The Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal instrumentalities (agencies) of the Government, instead they are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.


      Why did Congress want the Federal Reserve to be relatively independent?
      The intent of Congress in shaping the Federal Reserve Act was to keep politics out of monetary policy. The System is independent of other branches and agencies of government. It is self-financed and therefore is not subject to the congressional budgetary process.

      Several recent Supreme Court separations of powers decisions have noted that there are three, and only three, distinct branches of government; ‘independent’ agencies, therefore, either are in one of the three branches or they are unconstitutional. See Symposium on Administrative Law, The Uneasy Constitutional Status of Administrative Agencies, 36 AM. U.L. REV. 276 (forthcoming 1987) (discussing, inter alia, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951-52, 953 n.16 (1983); Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118-41 (1976) (per curiam)); see also Note, Incorporation of Executive Agencies into the Executive Branch, 94 YALE L.J. 1766 (1985). Of course, this is not a new concern. See, e.g., 1 K. DAVIS, supra note 2, § 2.7.

      Congress in their almighty wisdom has failed to understand that by their creation of quasi-governmental independent agencies they have inadvertently unconstitutionally granted non governmental organizations (NGO’s) co-equal legislative and/or judicial authority to create laws for this country and/or the authority to review and enforce them.


      When congress created quasi-governmental agencies (corporations) did they create a new, creative management era, which allowed them to go beyond the rule of law? Absolutely

      A Private Federal Corporation (PFC), also known as a Federal Government Corporation (FGC), is a corporation which has been established by the Federal Government. There are, of course, benefits to this, not the least of which would be the disbursement and management of funding by the corporation that would not be subject to Congressional oversight or monitoring. An additional benefit would be autonomy in operations.

      Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
      Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly. (Re:

      What is the definition of legislation? defines “legislation” as:
      1. the act of making or enacting laws.
      2. a law or a body of laws enacted.

      This raises the question, where did Congress get the lawful authority to create independent agencies and/or government corporations that go beyond the scope of the (law) ordinary legislation.

      What the founding fathers said about autonomy in operations (autonomous governance.)

      “…Alexander Hamilton explained that the separation of powers was “itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” It would deny a single department autonomous governance. It would keep abuse of power in check by humbling those in government with the need to satisfy the dictates of competing power centers.”

  2. olde reb September 10, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    The two previous comments did not distinguish between the components of the Federal Reserve System. The courts have identified the 12 FR Banks as privately owned by the shareholders (commercial banks) FOR THE ISSUES BEING ADJUDICATED. The FR BOG has been assumed to be a government agency by the courts but it does not comport with parameters established for an agency. The FDIC is identified as a government agency by statute.

  3. Deborah Williams January 20, 2012 at 5:37 am

    Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist presented Dr. Paul’s bill (HR 1207) to audit the Federal Reserve to the Senate for consideration.

    What does this say about the business practices of the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank that Socialists and Libertarians are driving the legislation with token support from liberals and conservatives?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: