Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar Mark Forums Read
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2008, 08:53 AM   #1
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
RON PAUL- My Answer to the President

Since i moved out of the USA people ask me "what is wrong with the USA" ...i reply now by saying "Look up Ron Paul...he sums it up " His truth is so refreshing, i am so tired of hearing the "barking of bullshit" both dems and rep.....makes me sick.



Ron Paul: My Answer to the President

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.



Ron Paul

www.house.gov/paul





Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. For more information click on the Project Freedom website.





Published with the authorization of Dr. Paul.

Copyright Dr. Ron Paul
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:17 AM   #2
Vegas Ken
Confirmed User
 
Vegas Ken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,151
Great information. Just what i needed to get my brain cells working today in prep for the Debates tonight... well if McCain is done with his "political power play" and actually shows up for the debates.
__________________
Skype: vegas_ken
Vegas Ken is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:21 AM   #3
Bugbee
Confirmed User
 
Bugbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Your moms house
Posts: 4,609
yep this is a great read Mike pretty much sums things up...
__________________
Stephen Bugbee
www.x2k.com
ICQ# FUCK ICQ
bugbee AT x2k dot com

X2K consulting and media services - specializing in business development, technology and profitability of your new or existing products and services

X2K MEDIA SUITE

Need a high risk merchant account? Contact me..

Are you a donor? Have a heart and help someone in need. Go to the DMV and be sure you are a donor, it saves lives!!!!
Bugbee is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:21 AM   #4
brand0n
been very busy
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the queen city
Posts: 26,983
he would have really done some good..

but ofcourse no money there..
__________________
want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.
brand0n is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:22 AM   #5
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugbee View Post
yep this is a great read Mike pretty much sums things up...
Sad huh?
I guess the older you get the more you can smell all the bullshit,
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:30 AM   #6
Zayne E.
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,383
Nice post!
Zayne E. is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:38 AM   #7
mikeyddddd
Viva la vulva!
 
mikeyddddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself
Posts: 16,557


mikeyddddd is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 09:59 AM   #8
leedsfan
leedsfan
 
leedsfan's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: purgatory
Posts: 2,564
One more thing to note. The Federal Reserve Bank is actually a totally separate entity and has no ties to the US government and the people of the US. So when money is created by the Federal Reserve Bank its actually creating debt load owed by taxpayers, NOT a federal banking institution. Federal Reserve Bank is owned by European aristocracy and power brokers, with solid ties to Bush family. Look up the Bildeberg group. This is essentially a world government, working above sovereign nations to create more wealth and power for themselves.

When the US treasury gave permission for the Federal Bank to stop backing new printed notes with actual gold tender (a system that meant for every dollar printed, 1/35g of gold had to be held in trust to cover that new printed dollar value), and instead printing essentially worthless (I.O.U.) promissory notes things started going downhill. Who was in power and approved this? Nixon...
leedsfan is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:03 AM   #9
budz
Disruptive Innovator
 
budz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 4,230
I don't know <s>too much</s> anything really about politics.

Is there still a way for Ron Paul to get into it again? Or am I just dreaming :|
__________________
C:\Code\
C:\Code\Run\
budz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:07 AM   #10
MrMaxwell
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by budz View Post
I don't know <s>too much</s> anything really about politics.

Is there still a way for Ron Paul to get into it again? Or am I just dreaming :|


The way Ron Paul is INTO IT is through all of the minds he's given eyes to..

PS: Mike and Spike run a ROCK FUCKING SOLID program...
Rebills like crazy, and they treat you like a top earner no matter who the fuck you are.
I can't thank them enough,
They've helped me through some times.
MrMaxwell is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:09 AM   #11
cwd
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dream
Posts: 1,955
I have been reading up on Ron Paul and like alot of what he has to say. Some of his ideas I do not agree with but at least I know exactly what he believes in, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for virtually any other politician.
cwd is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:14 AM   #12
budz
Disruptive Innovator
 
budz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 4,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaxwell View Post
The way Ron Paul is INTO IT is through all of the minds he's given eyes to..

True Indeed, I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker... and I hate bumper stickers.

So there is no way he could still get in the race and win? That would rock.
__________________
C:\Code\
C:\Code\Run\
budz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 11:40 AM   #13
IllTestYourGirls
Ah My Balls
 
IllTestYourGirls's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421
Posts: 14,311
This man should have been president. He got my vote in the primaries. At least people are starting to listen to this "kook". He is the only person in Washington telling the truth.
__________________
IllTestYourGirls is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 11:57 AM   #14
sltr
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsfan View Post
Federal Reserve Bank is owned by European aristocracy and power brokers, with solid ties to Bush family.
i've never found any valid facts supporting this conspiracy theory.
sltr is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 03:29 PM   #15
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsfan View Post
One more thing to note. The Federal Reserve Bank is actually a totally separate entity and has no ties to the US government and the people of the US. So when money is created by the Federal Reserve Bank its actually creating debt load owed by taxpayers, NOT a federal banking institution. Federal Reserve Bank is owned by European aristocracy and power brokers, with solid ties to Bush family. Look up the Bildeberg group. This is essentially a world government, working above sovereign nations to create more wealth and power for themselves.

When the US treasury gave permission for the Federal Bank to stop backing new printed notes with actual gold tender (a system that meant for every dollar printed, 1/35g of gold had to be held in trust to cover that new printed dollar value), and instead printing essentially worthless (I.O.U.) promissory notes things started going downhill. Who was in power and approved this? Nixon...
Hey brother, this is the kind of stuff that blows over most peoples heads, and could not even for a minute understand or comprehend ...but you are so right, the Fed Reserve is a private system...and there is a group of families that pretty much run this entire country and helped control and run the Euro.

So here is a fact that cant be disputed:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)


The federal reserve

1791-1811: Rothschilds? First Bank of the United States

1816-1836: Rothschilds? Second Bank of the United States

1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson

1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson

1913-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of privately held associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public trading

On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later


...we are fucked ....
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 03:31 PM   #16
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaxwell View Post
The way Ron Paul is INTO IT is through all of the minds he's given eyes to..

PS: Mike and Spike run a ROCK FUCKING SOLID program...
Rebills like crazy, and they treat you like a top earner no matter who the fuck you are.
I can't thank them enough,
They've helped me through some times.
Mr Maxwell....thank you so very much from all of us at Smashbucks
Stay tuned we are rolling out the best Smashbucks ever..soon !

__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 03:47 PM   #17
sltr
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,191
here's some facts that are over conspiracy theorist's heads and some they will never comprehend:

Quote:
Who Owns and Controls the Federal Reserve?

by Dr. Edward Flaherty, University of Charleston



Is the Federal Reserve System secretly owned and covertly controlled by powerful foreign banking interests? If so, how? These claims, made chiefly by authors Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) and repeated by many others, are quite serious because the Fed is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power presumably would be used to benefit the U.S. economy. Mullins and Kah both argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by foreigners. Although the New York Fed is just one of twelve Federal Reserve banks, controlling it, they claimed, is tantamount to control of the entire System. Foreigners use their command of the New York Fed to manipulate U.S. monetary policy for their own and, as Kah asserted, to further their global political goals, namely the establishment of the sinister New World Order.

This essay examines the accuracy of these claims. Specifically, it investigates the charge that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign elements, whether the New York Fed in effect runs the whole Federal Reserve System, and whether its enormous annual profits accrue primarily to foreigners or to the U.S government. This essay shows that there is little evidence to support the idea of foreign ownership and much that contradicts it. In addition, it presents evidence to show that the New York Fed does not command the entire System, as well as recent data demonstrating that the System's profits are paid to the federal government.

Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed's outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

'... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today' (Mullins, p. 47-48).

He further commented that the day the Federal Reserve Act was passed, "the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers" (Ibid, p. 29).

Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed.

Are these eight banks on Mullins' list of stockholders owned by foreigners, what Mullins termed the London Connection? The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of Mullins' eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).

Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.

An historical example may make clear that member banks do not control the Federal Reserve's policies. Galbraith (1990) recounted that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that had begun in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to have been forming: it raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators' margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (today known as Citibank), which was the largest shareholder of the New York Federal Reserve Bank according to Mullins, was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, "We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market" (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restrictive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, "The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year" (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly buck the intent of its single largest shareholder?

This information also eluded fellow conspiracy theorist Gary Kah, who disagreed with Mullins on who owns the New York Fed. His Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts identified the top eight shareholders as the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers of New York; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhatten; and Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13). It is impossible to verify Kah's information because it is not known who his "contacts" were. Nevertheless, Kah's list differs substantially from Mullins' compilation. Most interestingly, in Kah's list foreigners own the New York Fed directly without having to own majority interests in U.S. banks, as is the case with Mullins' list. The discrepancies in the two lists mean that at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Kah's list is the bogus one because no public stock has ever been issued, so it is not possible for anyone on Kah's list other than Chase Manhatten to own shares of the New York Fed.


sltr is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 03:48 PM   #18
sltr
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,191
continued

Quote:
Moreover, Kah seemed ignorant of important details about the organization of Federal Reserve stock and management, especially for someone claiming to have done as much research on the subject as he did. He referred to the organizations on his stockholders list as "Class A shareholders," which is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner (Ibid). It can be either member stock, which can be purchased only by commercial banks and thrifts seeking to become members of the Federal Reserve System, or public stock. However, the directors of a Federal Reserve bank are separated into Class A, B, and C categories, depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA 302, 304, 305). Three class A directors are chosen by the member banks. Three class B directors are also elected by the member banks to represent the non-bank sectors of the economy. The final three directors, class C, are picked by the Board of Governors also to represent the non-bank public. This may be the source of Kah's confusion, but it is a relatively simple point that he should have detected had his research efforts been thorough.

Does the New York Fed Call the Shots?

Mullins and Kah further argued that by controlling the New York Fed the international banking elite could command the entire Federal Reserve System, and thus direct U.S. monetary policy for their own profit. "For all practical purposes," Kah stressed, "the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the Federal Reserve" (Ibid). This is the linchpin of their conspiracy theory because it provides the mechanism by which the international bankers execute their plans.

A brief look at how the Fed's powers over monetary policy are actually distributed shows that the key assumption in the Mullins-Kah conspiracy theory is erroneous. The Federal Reserve System is controlled not by the New York Fed, but by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board is a seven member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It determines the interest rate, known as the discount rate, for loans to commercial banks and thrifts, selects the required reserve ratio which determines how much of customer deposits a bank must keep on hand (a factor that significantly affects a bank's ability create new loans), and also decides how much new currency Federal Reserve Banks may issue each year (12 USCA 248). The FOMC consists of the members of the Board, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents from other Fed Banks. The FOMC formulates open market policy, which determines how much in government bonds the Fed Banks may trade, and is the most effective and commonly used of the Fed's monetary policy tools (12 USCA 263). The key point is that a Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank through its direct and permanent representation on the FOMC has more say on monetary policy than other Federal Reserve Banks, but it still only has one vote of twelve on the FOMC and no say at all in setting the discount rate or the required reserve ratio. If it wanted monetary policy to go in one direction, while the Board and the rest of the FOMC wanted policy to go another, then the New York Fed would be out-voted. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly-appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators.

Mullins also made a great to-do about the Federal Advisory Council (the Council). This is a panel of twelve representatives appointed by the board of directors of each Fed Bank. The Council meets at least four times each year with the members of the Board to give them their advice and to discuss general economic conditions (12 USCA 261, 262). Many of the members have been bankers, a point not at all missed by Mullins. He speculated that it is able to force its will on the Board of Governors.

The claim that the "advice" of the council members is not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange pleasantries (Mullins, p. 45).

A point very much missed by Mullins is that the Council has no voting power in Board meetings, and thus has no direct input into monetary policy. In support of his hypothesis that Council members have been able to impose their will on the Board, Mullins offered no evidence, not even an anecdote. Moreover, his Council theory is inconsistent with his general thesis that the Federal Reserve System is manipulated by European banking interests through their control of the New York Fed. If this were true, then why would they also need the Council?

Who Gets the Fed's Profits?

Gary Kah and Thomas Schauf have also maintained that the huge profits of the Federal Reserve System are diverted to its foreign owners through the dividends paid to its stockholders. Kah reported "Each year billions of dollars are 'earned' by Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve" (Kah, p. 20). Schauf further lamented by asking, "When are the profits of the Fed going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes?"

The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board's 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board of Governors and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed's annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion's share of $23.4 billion, which represents 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve's net income, was transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to its stockholders as dividends.

Given that less than one percent of the Fed's net earnings are distributed as dividends, it seems that an investor could easily find much more profitable ways to store their wealth than buying Federal Reserve stock. Regarding Schauf's lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947.

Conclusion

It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifiable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funneled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it.

sltr is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:29 PM   #19
dav3
Confirmed User
 
dav3's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,348
Ron Paul is the best choice for President. That would be amazing if some how he got back in the race.
__________________
Webmasters :: Juicy Ads :: ACWM :: Crak Revenue :: Money Tree
dav3 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:33 PM   #20
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by sltr View Post
continued
Ok, so that is good, but how do you explain this,

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. . . .
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:34 PM   #21
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeHawk View Post
Ok, so that is good, but how do you explain this,

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. . . .
cont...

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.
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:36 PM   #22
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeHawk View Post
cont...

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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:37 PM   #23
Just_Dave
Its almost time
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,009
where did you move to mike
Just_Dave is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 04:52 PM   #24
sltr
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeHawk View Post
Ok, so that is good, but how do you explain this,

. .
can anyone really explain tort law?
LOL!

i can't really speak to the legalities of those cases, however, i did help put my ex-wife through law school and her 1st few years practicing and i recall her frustations when trying to make sense of torts, and our many conversations about them.

it seems to me you are posting those cases to show that the federal reserve bank is privately owned, correct? if so, i think the issue is a complicated one and that's why the courts decided that the bank is not a government institution and therefor, not liable to damages or tort to the plaintiffs in those cases.

but again, i am not an attorney and it's hard to make heads or tails outta that shit, hahahahahah!

but even so, privately owned does not mean foreign owned and conspiratorial.

also, re: the original topic of this thread, i am in complete agreement with ron paul and with your conclusion that we are fucked.

doh.
sltr is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 05:46 PM   #25
notoldschool
Confirmed User
 
notoldschool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls View Post
This man should have been president. He got my vote in the primaries. At least people are starting to listen to this "kook". He is the only person in Washington telling the truth.
it amazes me how blind people are.
__________________
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand

http://www.bjpenn.com
notoldschool is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 05:49 PM   #26
IllTestYourGirls
Ah My Balls
 
IllTestYourGirls's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by notoldschool View Post
it amazes me how blind people are.
There are few conservatives left in GOP. The neo-cons (who come from the very far left) have completely taken over the party.
__________________
IllTestYourGirls is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 08:03 PM   #27
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by sltr View Post
can anyone really explain tort law?
LOL!

i can't really speak to the legalities of those cases, however, i did help put my ex-wife through law school and her 1st few years practicing and i recall her frustations when trying to make sense of torts, and our many conversations about them.

it seems to me you are posting those cases to show that the federal reserve bank is privately owned, correct? if so, i think the issue is a complicated one and that's why the courts decided that the bank is not a government institution and therefor, not liable to damages or tort to the plaintiffs in those cases.

but again, i am not an attorney and it's hard to make heads or tails outta that shit, hahahahahah!

but even so, privately owned does not mean foreign owned and conspiratorial.

also, re: the original topic of this thread, i am in complete agreement with ron paul and with your conclusion that we are fucked.

doh.
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 08:15 PM   #28
Chauncy
Confirmed User
 
Chauncy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Detroit
Posts: 642
great read thanks for this I would love to see Ron Paul in office and if he was smart he would go outside of the government for a vp maybe Jon c Bogle who wrote a book in 05 that predicted this to almost the minute "the battle for the soul of capitalism" if you haven't read it you should
__________________
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. -Karl Marx
Chauncy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 08:16 PM   #29
notoldschool
Confirmed User
 
notoldschool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls View Post
There are few conservatives left in GOP. The neo-cons (who come from the very far left) have completely taken over the party.
I agree. People dont know the difference between fiscal and social conservatism. These fuckers are far from fiscally conservative.
__________________
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand

http://www.bjpenn.com
notoldschool is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2008, 08:24 AM   #30
MikeHawk
Confirmed User
 
MikeHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin
Posts: 6,683
Bumps for Ron Paul........
__________________
THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW
MikeHawk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks
Thread Tools



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.