WHAT IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE ENTITY

WORLD GOVERNMENT

DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

DANIEL 12:4,1
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

REVELATION 13:1-3,7,8,12,16-18
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

REVELATION 17:3,7,9-10,12,18
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

WORLD GOVERNMENTS HELPS - RESEARCHES
http://www.govspot.com/categories/worldgovernment.htm

COALITION FOR DEMOCRATIC WORLD GOVERNMENT WEB SITE - RESEARCH FOR PEOPLE
http://www.cdwg.org/home.htm
OTHER WORLD GOVERNMENT LINKS FOR RESEARCH
http://www.cdwg.org/home.htm
ADMINET WORLD GOVERNMENT LINKS ETC
http://www.adminet.com/world/gov/

STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION - STORY
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoPeas.html

Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 1
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=r2qPZ9WqLy4
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 2
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RlClt3Mzp0k&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 3
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PITVCYQTIf0&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m6kmXTzHqrk&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 5
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AznmsfngQd0&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 6
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0xOyEHrjlNg&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 7
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mye6LFrJ4Y4&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=g3oqYTJXYuU&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 9
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfhFHVIjr4&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 10
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1N_Zoo8fonQ&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 11
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5VCJ7Ior_1Y&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 12
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FtHsjCvIGDs&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 13
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wEnfsd2_bUo&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 14
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAuMKbiDMQ&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 15
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sHjPk6WiG5s&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 16
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpfMdAi-aU&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 17
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5ryjUvyCLMk&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 18
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhjm4BTCauk&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 19
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_gAfKQnQ1ag&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 20
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=DlDbXOndSag&feature=related
Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 21
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_USXKtwNi2o&feature=related

THE BEGGINING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw1F2sxt2kI&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

The Real Face of the European Union - VIDEO
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460&hl=en

2000 YEARS A HISTORY OF EUROPE - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kegXDSUi8c&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

POLTICAL BOARDERS OF EUROPE TO 2006 - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq0KNfS_M44&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

EMPIRES OF THE WORLD - VIDEO (THE EU TO BE THE 7TH AND FINAL WORLD EMPIRE BEFORE JESUS RULES FROM JERUSALEM FOREVER.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tRnlUGEv2E&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

WORLD TRADE BLOCS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3077524.stm
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-07-voa22.cfm
http://books.google.com/books?id=1GNwBYHpy3cC&dq=world+trading+blocs/video&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&sa=X&oi
=book_result&resnum=13&ct=result#PPP1,M1
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1462&categoryid=ADE8AF04-F27F-F0C6
-6CF6C41335F06527&fuseaction=topics.events_item_topics&event_id=73069
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10553544&pnum=0

Africa delays moves towards federal government By Daniel Wallis and Barry Moody – Sun Feb 1, 2:36 pm ET

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – African leaders on Sunday again delayed concrete moves toward creating a United States of Africa, despite a long campaign by Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.Gaddafi and other supporters like Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, have been calling for years for an accelerated process toward a union government, saying it is the only way to meet the challenges of globalization, fighting poverty and resolving conflicts without Western interference.But they are opposed by other nations, headed by economic powerhouse South Africa, who see such an idea as a distant and impractical prospect.Gaddafi's proposal dominated a sometimes heated African Union (AU) summit in Ghana in 2007, but no deal was reached.

The previous AU summit in Egypt last July produced a skeleton agreement and the first day of the current meeting in Ethiopia was devoted to the union proposal.
Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete told a news conference on Sunday night the meeting had agreed only to change the name of the current AU Commission into an authority, rejecting a proposal by the body itself to transform it immediately into a union government.Kikwete, the current AU chairman, said this would infringe the sovereignty of the AU's 53 states.In principle, we said the ultimate is a United States of Africa, Kikwete added, insisting the authority would have a bigger mandate, bigger budget and bigger capacities than the existing commission.But he was vague on how its powers would expand.Gaddafi has previously berated African leaders for delaying on his unity proposal, but asked about the often fiery Libyan leader's reaction, Kikwete said: He was very supportive.The Tanzanian president said the Addis summit would agree by its close on Wednesday on the new authority's structures but it would not be launched until the next summit in July. He said this would move the continent closer to a union government.

NEW AUTHORITY

The new authority would have a president and vice president, and current AU commissioner positions would be transformed into the secretaries of areas of shared competence including poverty reduction, infrastructure, disease epidemics, peace and security and transnational crime and terrorism.AU Commission chairman Jean Ping said recently that views on the speed of integration varied from nine to 35 years, but the continent needed to speak with a united voice to be heard in international negotiations on trade and other issues including climate change.One east African delegate, who asked not to be named, said earlier that the summit felt obliged to discuss Gaddafi's pet project because of the large sums of money he has poured into parts of the continent.It is important to him, so they will discuss it. But the challenges of making it work, obviously, are vast, he said.The official theme of this week's summit at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa is boosting infrastructure, which experts say is essential if Africa is to weather the global financial crisis.

But conflict and crisis in Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are expected, as usual at AU summits, to overshadow the official agenda.
(Additional reporting by Barry Malone; Editing by Charles Dick)

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board Official Site
http://www.federalreserve.gov/

The Federal Open Market Committee
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

The Beige Book
http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/BeigeBook/2005/

Federal Reserve Policy, Inflation, & Inflation Targeting A Report by the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee
http://www.house.gov/jec/fed.htm

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

THE FEDERAL RESERVE - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKlz2Z4Nlo&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

OBAMA TRILATERAL COMMISSION END GAME
http://www.infowars.com/obama-trilateral-commission-endgame/

What is the Federal Reserve and what does it do? FEB 1,09

Periodically, I hear about the Federal Reserve raising interest rates or lowering interest rates. But what is the Federal Reserve? Is it a governmental body or a private one? Does it just set interest rates or does do other things? The Federal Reserve is considered an independent central bank. It is independent since its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or Congress. The Federal Reserve System was created by Congress in 1913 to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.

While the Federal Reserve is an independent institution, it is still accountable to Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and set its value. Congress delegated this power to the Federal Reserve in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, but still maintains oversight authority. Under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978, the Federal Reserve must submit a report on the economy to Congress by February 20 and July 20 of each year. Alan Greenspan, the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, is called to testify on the report before Senate and House Committees. The Federal Reserve System is made up of a Board of Governors and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the country. There are seven members that sit on the Board of Governors. Each member must be nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Members are appointed to serve 14-year nonrenewable terms. The President also nominates members of the Board to serve as Chair and Vice Chair for four-year renewable terms. These appointments must also be confirmed by the Senate. The most important policy making body of the Federal Reserve System is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). It is composed of the seven Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and four other Reserve Bank presidents that serve on a rotating basis. The FOMC can effect monetary policy through the use of three tools: Open market operations--the buying and selling of U.S. government securities.
Altering reserve requirements--the amount of funds that commercial banks must hold in reserve against deposits.

Adjusting the discount rate--the interest rate charged to commercial banks.
These tools can be used to tighten or expand the money supply. For example, if the FOMC wanted to control inflation, it could restrict the nation's money supply by selling government securities and raising the amount of money that banks need to set aside for reserve requirements. Both of these actions would take money out of circulation. In theory, a smaller supply of money would lead to less spending which would lead to lower prices. The FOMC can also raise interest rates to help control inflation. By making money more expensive to borrow, consumers would be more likely to save money rather than spend it. This could also lead to lower prices. The FOMC meets eight times during the year to consider economic developments and to vote on policy. In the past 12 months, Federal Reserve officials have raised interest rates six times. During the FMC's last meeting on May 16, the committee voted to raise short-term interest rates by half of a percentage point to 6.5%, the highest level since 1991. This was done in an effort to slow the pace of the U.S. economy and keep inflation at a low, manageable level. Since the FOMC meeting in May, many observers have speculated about the Federal Reserve's likely actions when it next meets on June 27-28. One good indicator of the Fed's likely actions is the Beige Book it releases two weeks before each of its policy meetings. The Beige Book is a survey of economic conditions across the country and is used as a reference for Fed officials when considering monetary policies, such as interest rate hikes. The Federal Reserve is primarily concerned about inflation and many speculate that higher inflation may lead to another increase in interest rates.

The Fed's latest report was released June 14 and showed a leveling off of the Consumer Price Index (a broad measure of the prices of goods in the economy) for the month of May. However, the report also showed that long-term inflation, measured over a 12-month period, was up from last year. Furthermore, many expect that rising gasoline costs will contribute to a higher Consumer Price Index for the month of June. Most indications point to a boost in interest rates when the Fed convenes later this month. Contributing Author: Prof. Shad Satterthwaite, The University of Oklahoma.

The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution
Text of court ruling and analysis Global Research, April 2, 2008
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution
------------------------------------------------------
Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations, and there is not sufficient federal government control over detailed physical performance and day to day operation of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee. No. 80-5905 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted March 2, 1982.Decided April 19, 1982.As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States
There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over detailed physical performance and day to day operation of an entity. . . .

2. United States
Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as wholly owned government corporations nor as mixed ownership corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation
Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.
--------------
Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . Federal agency is defined as:
the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the detailed physical performance and day to day operation of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . 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 purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361. Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made. It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as wholly owned government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as mixed ownership corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a public official under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting for or on behalf of the Government. . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is substantial federal involvement in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the important governmental function test and concluded that the term Federal Government in the Service Contract Act must be liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government. Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term federal agency for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured. For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
----------------
It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government instrumentality, but cannot be considered a federal agency, because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is politically independent.The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses. Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.

RON PAUL VIDEO - TALKS ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnsfZwwswZE&eurl=http://israndjer.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

WORLD AFFAIRS We Need a Bank Of the World - The financial crisis is global, and only an international central bank can deal with it.By Jeffrey E. Garten | NEWSWEEK Published Oct 25, 2008 From the magazine issue dated Nov 3, 2008 From the Editors (2) Nobel Laureates on Fixing the Economy How Green Technology Can Spark Economic Growth

If George W. Bush's upcoming global summit on how to fix the world's broken financial system—an event proposed by several European presidents and prime ministers—is to be a serious effort, the leaders should begin laying the groundwork for establishing a global central bank.The idea of such an institution would have been a political nonstarter before the current debacle. The crises of the last several decades—the Latin American debt meltdown in the early 1980s, the stock-market crash in 1987, the savings and loan collapse of the early 1990s, the Asian financial blowup of the late.1990s, the Internet-stock collapse earlier in this decade—did not involve the extent of global linkages among financial institutions or the mind-boggling consequences of complex securities that we are seeing today. In none of these previous blowups did the global credit system shut down, as it did in recent weeks; in none did governments in both the industrialized and developing world intervene so massively, coming close to nationalizing the entire global banking system.And in none was it so clear that there is no effective governing authority at the center of global finance. There was a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve played this role, as the prime financial institution of the world's most powerful economy, overseeing the one global currency. But with the growth of capital markets, the rise of currencies like the euro and the emergence of powerful players such as China, the shift of wealth to Asia and the Persian Gulf and, of course, the deep-seated problems in the American economy itself, the Fed no longer has the capability to lead singlehandedly.

After World War II, the IMF was designed to be a central financial institution, too. But over the decades it has had less and less influence on the rich industrialized nations. Its credibility with Asia and Latin America has also waned. It is still involved in bailouts for countries such as Iceland and Pakistan, but its once central role in protecting global stability is clearly over. And most important, its political legitimacy is deeply flawed, because its management structure reflects the 1950s, with Belgium having more voting power than China.In the future, a global central bank is needed to oversee the rudderless global financial system. There are a number of critical functions it could perform.It could be the lead regulator of big global financial institutions, such as Citigroup or Deutsche Bank, whose activities spill across borders. It could monitor risks that are building in the global market and create an early-warning system that alerts banks and national regulators that trouble is coming, and pushes them to modify their policies.It could act as a bankruptcy court when big global banks that operate in multiple countries need to be restructured. It could oversee not just the big commercial banks, such as Mitsubishi UFJ, but also the alternative financial system that has developed in recent years, consisting of hedge funds, private-equity groups and sovereign wealth funds—all of which are now substantially unregulated.A new institution could have influence over key exchange rates, and might lead a new monetary conference to realign the dollar and the yuan, for example, for one of its first missions would be to deal with the great financial imbalances that hang like a sword over the world economy.

A global central bank would not eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve or other national central banks, which will still have frontline responsibility for sound regulatory policies and monetary stability in their respective countries. But it would have heavy influence over them when it comes to following policies that are compatible with global growth and financial stability. For example, it would work with key countries to better coordinate national stimulus programs when the world enters a recession, as is happening now, so that the cumulative impact of the various national efforts do not so dramatically overshoot that they plant the seeds for a crisis of global inflation. This is a big threat as government spending everywhere goes into overdrive.The IMF could continue to exist, but its board would have to be restructured, its bailout role for smaller nations carefully defined, and its directions—including the severity of the conditions it imposes on borrowers—would have to come from the new central bank.To give it legitimacy, a global central bank would have to be governed in light of political realities. That means that its board would include not only the top financial officials of the United States, the U.K., the euro zone and Japan, but also China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa and perhaps a few others.If a global central bank had existed before today's financial crisis, it could have sounded a shrill warning about irresponsible financial transactions much earlier; and if it had been set up with the enforcement teeth it deserves, it would have had the clout to demand, perhaps as early as 2005, that banks and other financial institutions start building reserves when times were booming, rather than allow them to maintain lower reserves precisely because profits were soaring. It would have seen that financial institutions were accumulating debt that was 30 times their capital and imposed—or caused national central banks to impose—more sober leverage ratios.A global central bank worth its salt would have reined in not just commercial banks but also loosely-regulated investment banks, because all such institutions would have been obligated to adhere to the global banks' regulatory standards or else be blacklisted in global markets. It would have intervened to deal with Lehman Brothers and AIG, both with truly global reach, and thereby put the burden not just on American taxpayers but also taxpayers of other countries who used these institutions' services.Had it existed, a global central bank would have acted without the air of panic that has been exhibited by national central banks and finance ministries in this meltdown. Ideally, it would have gathered its governing board well in advance of a financial blowup to execute a coordinated rescue and global-stimulus plan, part of what should be its ongoing role of preparing for crises.

It would be hard to overestimate the political pushback that any official proposal for a global central bank would draw from various constituencies, most especially within the United States. Among their many charges, critics will protest the establishment of world government. But we have a World Trade Organization with legally binding powers over trade disputes. We have a World Health Organization for communicable disease with the ability to quarantine entire countries. And a World Court functions today that has considerable legal and moral clout.No one should want too much globally centralized oversight. But the world's gathering misery shows that too little leadership from the center can be equally dangerous. The November summit itself won't solve anything, but if it gave instructions to finance ministers and central bankers to explore what a new central bank could do, with a deadline to come back with concrete ideas shortly after a new U.S. president is inaugurated, it will have made real progress on one of the great problems of our times.Garten is the Juan Trippe Professor of international trade and finance at the Yale School of Management.2008

WORLDS CENTRAL BANK - STORY
http://www.winterspeak.com/2008/10/worlds-central-bank.html

Enlightened Economics
http://enlightenedeconomics.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/out-of-the-ashes-a-global-central-bank/

Our financial overseers will create a world central bank in the next few years. Growing higher consciousness in the world will enable it to become a reality. This bank will have a mandate to monitor, regulate, and maintain global currency, credit, and debt issuance. It will ensure that growth of these activities roughly matches global economic output. It will come about as the chaos and inadequacies engendered in our present monetary system become evident to everyone and a world central bank seen as the best solution.Individuals and groups in financial markets everywhere, lacking inner fulfillment, have demonstrated inordinate greed resulting in reckless financial games and gambling – are bringing the financial system to its knees.Such mismanagement in the financial system, I believe, will require the new world central bank to disallow banks everywhere from continuing in unfettered debt creation and speculative excesses. In search of ever higher returns, banks created overly lax lending standards, highly leveraged loans, obscure financial entities bearing major financial risks unconsolidated in their financial statements, and generally ran down the quality of their assets and reserves to unsafe levels.

Shadow banking system larger than conventional banking
All the while an even bigger, massively leveraged, totally unregulated, thinly capitalized, shadow-banking system was allowed to balloon by bank regulators. And it is now in the process of imploding! Bill Gross, managing director of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, said this recently about the shadow banking system: Our modern shadow banking system craftily dodges the reserve requirements of traditional institutions and promotes a chain letter, pyramid scheme of leverage, based in many cases on no reserve cushion whatsoever.Due to the enormous growth of irresponsible central bank and banking activities globally, plus the vast, mushrooming credit creation of the shadow banking system – the world’s money supply is expanding out-of-control.

Unprecedented money supply growth creates inflation as bad as 1970s
Globally we see that, China [is] registering an 18% plus growth in money, India 22.4% a year growth, Singapore 14%, Britain up by 12.3%, Western Europe 11.5%, Australia 16%, Canada 13%, and Saudi Arabia 22%! So says The Mogambo Guru, Richard Daughty. These are broad money supply figures. John Williams of www.shadowstats.com shows the US broad measure of money supply, as of early February 2008, increasing at annual rate of 16.8%. (The US Federal Reserve stopped publishing this measure in March 2006 claiming it costs too much to produce. Many economists suspect that they just wanted to hide the ramping-up of the US money supply.)Even Marketwatch’s chief economist, Irwin Kellner, is concerned about US money supply growth. He said recently, that, The rate of growth for highly liquid funds which the St. Louis Fed calls MZM [i.e. physical money, checking and money market accounts, etc.]… soared by an annual rate of 22.7% between December 24, 2007 and February 18 of this year. He adds, it has created a whole lot of inflation.The link between an expanding money supply and inflation is firmly established. As the Bank of England’s Governor, Mervyn King quoting a highly respected study, said, that Over the 30 year horizon 1968-98, the correlation coefficient between the growth rates of both narrow and broad money, on the one hand, and inflation, on the other, was 0.99. Thus in the words of Milton Friedman, the recently deceased Nobel Economics prize winner, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

In the US, consumer price inflation using the politically biased, understated, consumer price index (CPI-U) is in January 2008 up 4.3% from a year earlier. But using the CPI methodology as of 1980, it is almost hyperinflationary at close to 12%! Inflation in China is now running at 8.7%, while in the EU and the UK, though more moderate at 3.4% and 3.1% respectively, it is picking-up significantly and well above their respective central bank targets.The foregoing suggests that the present global monetary and financial system is reaching a state of extraordinary instability. The danger is the possibility of rapidly growing, unstoppable inflation culminating in a hyperinflationary episode such as is now occurring in Zimbabwe. Or, a threat of a deflationary bust similar to the Great Depression.

Higher consciousness the only real answer
The only real answer to such economic threats is higher global consciousness. This, I am convinced, will gain traction. (See my post, The Missing Ingredient In Economics — Consciousness!). In future years, this higher consciousness will, amongst other things, first manifest itself by allowing our financial overseers to see the need for, and create, a world central bank. In ages past central banks utilized gold to help create monetary order. A new world central bank might well find a role for gold again, but in an updated, modern form. I will write about this in another post.

Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame Patrick Wood January 29, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Editor’s note: For clarity, members of the Trilateral Commission appear in bold type.

As previously noted in Pawns of the Global Elite,
http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/u.s._elections/obama_and
_mccain:_pawns_of_the_global_elite?_2008080597/
Barack Obama was groomed for the presidency by key members of the Trilateral Commission. Most notably, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973, who was Obama’s principal foreign policy advisor.The Obama presidency is a disingenuous fraud. He was elected by promising to bring change, yet from the start change was never envisioned. He was carefully groomed and financed by the Trilateral Commission and their friends. The pre-election attention is reminiscent of Brzezinski’s tutoring of Jimmy Carter prior to Carter’s landslide election in 1976.For anyone who doubts the Commission’s continuing influence on Obama, consider that he has already appointed no less than nine members of the Commission to top-level and key positions in his Administration.

According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama’s appointments encompass more than 10% of Commission’s entire U.S. membership.Is this a mere coincidence or is it a continuation of dominance over the Executive Branch since 1976? (For important background, read The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty.)
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_
commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/

1- Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
2- Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
3- National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
4- Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
5- Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair 6- Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
7- Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
8- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
9- State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
10- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke

There are many other incidental links to the Trilateral 12- 12- Commission, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is married to Commission member William Jefferson Clinton. Geithner’s informal group of advisors include E. Gerald Corrigan, Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan and Peter G. Peterson, among others. His first job after college was with Henry Kissinger at Kissinger Associates. Brent Scowcroft has been an unofficial advisor to Obama and was mentor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Robert Zoelick is currently president of the World Bank

Laurence Summers, White House Economic Advisor, was mentored by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration.There are many other such links, but these are enough for you to get the idea of what’s going on here.

Analyze the positions

Notice that five of the Trilateral appointees involve the State Department, where foreign policy is created and implemented. Hillary Clinton is certainly in line with these policies because her husband, Bill Clinton, is also a member. What is more important than economic recovery? Paul Volker is the answer. What is more important than national intelligence? Thomas Donilon and Adm. Dennis Blair hold the two top positions.What is more important than the Treasury and the saving of our financial system? Timothy Geithner says he has the answers. This leaves Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations. The U.N. is the chosen instrument for ultimate global governance. Rice will help to subvert the U.S. into the U.N. umbrella of vassal states.

Conflict of interest

Since 1973, the Commission has met regularly in plenary sessions to discuss policy position papers developed by its members. Policies are debated in order to achieve consensuses. Respective members return to their own countries to implement policies consistent with those consensuses.The original stated purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to create a New International Economic Order. Its current statement has morphed into fostering a closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. (See The Trilateral Commission web site)
http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm

U.S. Trilateral members implement policies determined by a majority of non-Americans that most often work against the best interests of the country.How, you say? Since the administration of Jimmy Carter, Trilaterals held these massively influential positions:

1. Six out of eight World Bank presidents, including the current appointee, Robert Zoelick
2. Eight out of ten U.S. Trade Representatives
3. President and/or Vice-President of every elected administration
4. Seven out of twelve Secretaries of State
5. Nine out of twelve Secretaries of Defense
6. Is this sinking in? Are you grasping the enormity of it?

Endgame is at hand

For the Trilateral crowd, the game is about over. The recent reemergence of original members Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Paul Volker serves to reinforce the conclusion that the New International Economic Order is near.The Trilateral Commission and its members have engineered the global economic, trade and financial system that is currently in a state of total chaos.

Does that mean that they have lost? Hardly.

As I recently wrote in Chorus call for New World Order, they are using the crisis to destroy what remains of national sovereignty, so that a New World Order can finally and permanently be put into place.
http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/
chorus_call_for_new_world_order_20090108109/

Conclusion

The Obama presidency is a disingenuous fraud. He was elected by promising to bring change, yet from the start change was never envisioned. He was carefully groomed and financed by the Trilateral Commission and their friends.In short, Obama is merely the continuation of disastrous, non-American policies that have brought economic ruin upon us and the rest of the world. The Obama experience rivals that of Jimmy Carter, whose campaign slogan was I will never lie to you.When the Democrat base finally realizes that it has been conned again (Bill Clinton and Al Gore were members), perhaps it will unleash a real political revolution that will oust Trilateral politicians, operatives and policies from the shores of our country.If the reader is a Democrat, be aware that many Republicans and conservatives are still licking their wounds after finally realizing that George Bush and Dick Cheney worked the same con on them for a disastrous eight years of the same policies!

Research related articles:

2008 Trilateral Commission Attendee List
http://www.infowars.com/2008-trilateral-commission-attendee-list/

Odds-on: Who will Obama tap for Secretary of State?
http://www.infowars.com/gambling-house-placing-bets-on-obamas-secretary-of-state/