< HOME  Thursday, March 09, 2006

Money issued at interest by the Fed

This is part of a transcript of a conversation between Dan Benham (realdemocracy.com) and "Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank … on October 8, 1992."
CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?


CALLER - According to the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase U.S. Bonds from the government?

SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER - Where did they go?

SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

SUPINSKI - I don't know.

CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?


CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

SUPINSKI - About $7.

CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words, were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?


CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.


At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

Again an amazing story. I kind of like those money stories.

But I like to bring your attention to the folowing link which I think is a thrilling story if you havenot read it already

Stunning scary, will Alberto Gonzalez be the new Joe McCarthy? Is bush the new Hitler is Cheyney the new Goering?

TomTom. Fearles navigator

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...


you don't happen to be named after the guy in million dollar hotel do you?

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

It is my real nickname, and the name of a very good road navigation system and they do make shit loads of money, more or less real money ;) When you make a mistake while driving TomTom will prompt you to to turn around as soon as the posibility is there.
So some people call me tomtom turnaround (smoke and mirrors artist) and that makes the combination. The system finds anythingand is basically fearless. So no I am not naming myslef after the guy in million dollar hotel.

But how about Bush silencing the press?

TomTom, Turnaround

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

yeah read that a maybe yesterday

they're really giving him a hard time. he can't even fly in the US.

he reported on theNSA scandal two yrs before the msm.

guy's a gem do they're hitting him with whatever they got.

it figures: dictatorship. heard soomething intersting today too. daryl smith thinks bush is et up as the fall guy. the next guy they put forth will promise to change but will not roll back anything already achieved.

which makes sens. the last decent pres we had was calvin coolidge, probably.

it's been downhill since.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

this is another gem, jc!

How do you find all this stuff?

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

and there's this

Why, for example, would the Pentagon see the internet as a greater threat than the mainstream media, where an estimated 75% of Americans get their news?

The reason is clear; because the MSM is already a fully-integrated part of the corporate-system providing a 24 hour per day streaming of business-friendly news. Today’s MSM operates as a de-facto franchise of the Pentagon, a reliable and sophisticated propagandist for Washington’s wars of aggression and political subterfuge.

The internet, on the other hand, is the last bastion of American democracy; a virtual world where reliable information moves instantly from person to person without passing through the corporate filter. Online visitors can get a clear picture of their governments’ depredations with a click of the mouse. This is the liberalization of the news, an open source of mind-expanding information that elevates citizen awareness of complex issues and threatens the status quo.

The Pentagon program is just one facet of a broader culture of deception; a pervasive ethos of dishonesty that envelopes all aspects of the Bush White House. The “Strategic Intelligence” Dept is a division of the Defense establishment that is entirely devoted to concealing, distorting, omitting and manipulating the truth.

In what way is “strategic intelligence” different from plain intelligence?

It is information that is shaped in a way that meets the needs of a particular group. In other words, it is not the truth at all, but a fabrication, a fiction, a lie.

Strategic intelligence is an oxymoron; a tidy bit of Orwellian doublespeak that reflects the deeply rooted cynicism of its authors.

The internet is a logical target for the Pentagon’s electronic warfare. Already the Downing Street memos, Bush’s bombing-threats against Al Jazeera, the fraudulent 2004 elections, and the leveling of Falluja, have disrupted the smooth execution of Bush’s wars. It is understandable that Rumsfeld and Co. would seek to transform this potential enemy into an ally, much as it has done with the MSM.

The Pentagon’s plans for engaging in “virtual warfare” are impressive. As BBC notes: “The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.” (BBC)

The enemy, of course, is you, dear reader, or anyone who refuses to accept their role as a witless-cog in new world order. Seizing the internet is a prudent way of controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

hey q, thx. google, follow leads, threads links, notes, asides, all kinds of stuff.

tomtom and q,

as far as violations of the constitution are concerned i think we're (this site) prosecutable, with a strecth of the imagination and an alito/gonzales twist to the law. it's been done before too. i believe.

i'm quoting the 14th amendment here:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.…."

the pertinent part here (in bold), for the people of this site, is that "to question the US debt" to the Fed Res as i do, again and again, could be construed as a constitutional crime. great isn't it?


At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

that's freedom and democracy for you. what it boils down to is that i can't object to my abject slavery, nor that of my fellow americans.

wish we could have some of that "freedom" they're giving the iraqis.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

one more thing, don't know which country in europe you're from but you should check out your local national bank.

i'll bet you it's privately owned.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

As far as my information goes it is owned by the government. And is controled by the state. All shares are owned by the state. It is not a bank as all other banks here it has another banking function. If the state wants to sell the shares it needs to go through parliamant first, probably a law change which is not that easy with us, since we have a lot more political parties here, which is over the full spectrum from christian right to the more left socialist party (old communist party) just left of the middle there is the largest social democratic party (far more left then your democratic party) There are 10 parties in total (5 would do) The governing coalition right of the middle (3 parties) has just lost the vote of the people so practically they have a majority but virtually they have not, which is a rare problem. The virtual majority is much larger but if this government does not fall we have to wait another 14 months untill the elections which we have every 4 years if nothing goes wrong. You could say a government without a people. Our political system has enough safety valves and is very strictly controled by parliament. A Bush type person would not have a chance with so many parties. And our juridical system is very independent, no political assignments no Gonzales type person is possible.

TomTom, Fearless Navigator

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

one more thing, and this is really scary, with ref to the above post and to the one on E, Mullins about us being occupied.

read carefully.

Subject: The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303 Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."

It goes on, but you get the idea, right?

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...


really, sounds like a great place!
you take people seeking asylum? might come in handy, one day. you never know.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

our country is in hock to international bankers. it is being managed, run, whatever you wanna call it. it's a "division" of united fruit or something.

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

Well this is one of the problems with the current government, we do take people seeking asylums but it is not easy and some people were/are extradited in an unpleasant way. This is one of the reasons the people are not happy and voted very much in favour of the left of center. They got more virtual seats then ever and we are an exception in Europe now where most are center democratic parties the exception the UK but Blair is a luny too, sold his whole country. But if your life is at stake and there is a deathpenalty in your country ( which there is) your chances are getting bigger. It wil take 4 years to get a citizenship. But you are allowed to vote on a munincipal level already when you live here. We are unfairly strict for people from Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa. Political assylum is a different story all together but similar rules. Most people that want to come here are economic refugees. All states in northern Europe have a very well organised welfare system still. So it is attractive to come here if you ran out of income.

Anyway you are welcome as far as I am concerned.
I would not like to live in a state that doesn't know freedom.

TomTom, Fearless Navigator

At Thursday, March 09, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

How about the Carlyle Group? They must have a say in what is happening on your side of the pond.

TomTom, Fearless Navigator

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


The conversation you excerpted just blows my mind. Thanks for excerpting it.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

anon at 04:24,

got it. thx

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

To my feeble understanding, the Fed stinks because of two counts:

1. The sheer lack of transparency and meaningful congressional oversight: treating the Fed like a magical temple with its Grand Wizard making cryptic pronouncements. Heck - the State Bank of Pakistan is more transparent:

The Fed Web site sidesteps the ownership and the money printing questions with disconcerting sleight.

The lack of teeth in the Congress, the only body that can legislate changes to the Federal Reserve, and it has done nothing in decades I believe.

2. The pent-up demand for debt as soon as GWB came in. Canada paid off a lot of its debt and had surpluses in the 90s and early 2000s, and the subsequent government vowed to keep that fiscal responsibility, but in the US it was like a mad rampage as soon as GWB won the elections to drive up debt as much as possible. Strange :)

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

well, the fed is part of the corporation running america,
they don't answer to congress. it's the other way round.

pres, senate and congress are more like middle managers, if even that.

the IRS is, by the way, also a private corporation owned by the fed, and hence not part of the gov.

remember, the fed issues money on the promise of payment to be reinforced by the "gov" i.e. taxes.

so the IRS are basically the fed's debt collectors.

but hey, don't tkae my word for it. ck it yrself.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I understand, there is no law giving the IRS authority to collect taxes.

Look up "Joe Banister" on Alex Jones' show.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


Point of fact, you are wrong about the IRS. They are a subagency of the Department of the Treasury, which is a Federal Executive Agency. They are not some "private corporation run by the fed."

You can read about this right here.


At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


That link also speaks to the law that gives the IRS its authority.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

are you seriously asking me to trust the government?

The IRS is not who you think they are.

IRS agents are neither trained nor paid by the United States Government.   

Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 92, the IRS is trained under the direction of the Division of Human Resources United Nations (U.N.) and the Commissioner (International), by the office of Personnel Management.    In the 1979 edition of 22 USCA 278, "The United Nations," you will find Executive Order 10422.  The Office of Personnel Management is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations.    Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91, the IRS entered into a "Service Agreement" with the US Treasury Department (See Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967,  Reorganization (BANKRUPTCY!!!) Plan No. 26) and the Agency for International Development.  This agency is an international paramilitary operation and according to the Department of the Army Field manual (1969) 41-10, pgs 1-4, Sec. 1-7 (b) & 1-6, Sec. 1-10 (7) (c) (1), and 22 USCA 284, includes such activities as, "Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area."    The IRS is also an agency/member of a 169 nation pact called the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, found at 22 USCA 263a.  The memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), between the Secretary of Treasury, AKA the corporate governor of  "The Fund" and "The Bank" (International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank for reconstruction and Development), indicated that the Attorney General and its associates are soliciting and collecting information for foreign principals;  the international organizations, corporations, and associations, exemplified by 22 USCA 286f.    According to the 1994 US Government Manual, at page 390, the Attorney General is the permanent representative to INTERPOL, and the Secretary of Treasury is the alternate member. Under Article 30 of the INTERPOL constitution, these individuals must expatriate their citizenship.  They serve no allegiance to the United States of America. The IRS is paid by "The Fund" and "The Bank."    Thus it appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service agents are "Agents of a Foreign Principle" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938" for private, not public, gain.    The IRS is directed and controlled by the corporate Governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank".  The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS collection agency are both privately owned and operated under private statutes.  The IRS operates under public policy, not Constitutional Law, and in the interest of our nations foreign creditors.    The Constitution only permits Congress to lay and collect taxes.  It does not authorize Congress to delegate the tax collection power to a private corporation, which collects our taxes for a private bank, the Federal Reserve, who then deposits it into the Treasury of the IMF.    The IRS is not allowed to state that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury.  They only refer to "The Treasury." 

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

what are you exactly, a paid shill?

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


I have a very good friend, and someone who QRS knows, (not a Jew, btw, for your own interest) who works for the IRS.

I actually know several people who have worked for the IRS in the past. What you are saying is simply not true. I realize a conspiracy theory is fun. I realize it is comforting. But at the end of the day, reality has to set in.

I have not received a penny from the IRS to propound their policies, and I have specific problems with a hell of a lot in the tax code, especially as someone who works in the field of employee benefits law. (working to help people recover pension funds)

It is funny that you pretty much jump to the "paid shill" conclusion so quickly.

Silly JC. Silly, silly JC.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

As tax deadline day approaches, it should be of interest to taxpayers that the IRS itself has been caught violating the law. Itís actually an old story. The IRS not only violated the law and got away with it, but the whistleblower inside the agency that disclosed this wrongdoing was forced out of the job. The whistleblower, Shelley Davis, was one of the speakers at the recent conference of whistleblowers co-sponsored by Accuracy in Media.

      Davis, who discovered that the IRS was destroying historical records in violation of the law, is the author of Unbridled Power: Inside the Secret Culture of the IRS. Although she suffered as a result of her whilstleblowing, she said she would do it again. She lost a career making $69,000 a year as the IRS historian, a retirement package, and didnít get a settlement from the agency when she left. More importantly, she said, I lost my faith in my government, and I lost my faith in my fellow citizens to do the right thing.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

IRS whistleblowers

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...






Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to be able to share a few of my thoughts and experiences with you today as you explore specific issues of IRS abuse of those the tax agency likes to call its "customers" -- American taxpayers.

For 16 years I worked as an historian for the federal government. Nine of those years were with the Department of Defense and the final seven were spent as the first and unfortunately, the last, official historian for the Internal Revenue Service. At the end of 1995, I resigned from my federal career in protest over the unwillingness of the IRS, or the Treasury Department Inspector General, to investigate my complaint of illegal document destruction by the IRS. I learned that the same federal investigator to whom I originally reported my concerns regarding this, had turned around and opened an investigation of me on unfounded and false charges of "wrongful release of confidential information." Later, I learned that this is a common tactic used against IRS employees who dare to speak up against management. I knew then that I had no alternative but to resign and try to raise awareness of the intransigence, arrogance, and abusive patterns of behavior that I found all too common inside the headquarters of the IRS. I decided to write a book which was published earlier this year entitled, "Unbridled Power."

My testimony today will touch briefly on three areas:

1. ) The cultural climate of the IRS;

2. ) List keeping at the IRS;

3. ) The IRS definition of "tax protester."

My introduction to the culture of the IRS came during my earliest days with the tax agency, in the fall of 1988. Although I had been hired as the first historian for the IRS, I found little interest or support for my efforts. I found even less history. By history I mean both an awareness of the heritage of the IRS as well as the raw material (the documentation) from which narrative history is distilled. Neither the documents nor the heritage were to be found. Initially, I found this curious. Later, I found it alarming. At the IRS National Headquarters, there seemed little connection between the work of employees and actual tax collection--what I presumed to be the mission of the IRS. Rather than possessing any basic curiosity about the past, the IRS employees I encountered exhibited a wariness, a suspicion--assuming that anyone looking for records must have some definite agenda. An agenda presumed to be negative.

This reluctance to think about the past translated into routine day-to-day operations, meaning that all documents were tossed, shredded, whatever, when a program was completed--or shut down, as in the case of many IRS computer projects. No records. No paper trail. No history.

As time went on, I realized that this not only made my job as historian virtually impossible, but that it guaranteed that the IRS could never be held accountable for its actions. With a sense of historical development, I came up with my own interpretation of this phenomenon. One could easily pass off the reluctance of the IRS to acknowledge its past as a reaction to a constant barrage of criticism. But the IRS is certainly not the only federal agency subjected to criticism from the press, Congress, or the public.

Instead of reflecting on positive actions in response to criticism, the IRS proclaims that any criticism of the agency is "IRS bashing" and "will only lead to more tax protesters." Rather than respond with solid information, historical examples, and analysis, the IRS jumps around skittishly, telling Congress that this reorganization, or that new position, or another new task force will remedy the current problem. The IRS has learned that its most effective response to inquiring questions from Congress, from the press, or from the American people is to hide behind the privacy laws. These are the laws meant to protect taxpayers. But by endlessly citing restrictions on its authority to comment on taxpayer cases, the IRS deflects criticism for any and all actions. In essence, the response of the IRS to question about anything and everything is, "Trust us. We're doing the right thing. We just can't tell you what that is because we're protecting American taxpayers."

she doesn't end there.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


I think you need to edit that comment. It is one long link, and I do not think you intended that.


When you respond with FACTS and PROOF, it takes me a while to sift throught it. I will read it later and come back to you. If you are right, I will concede it. But your anti-Jewish arguments from the other thread simply do not help your case. At all.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

When the Constitution was established, it gave Congress full and all embracing taxing powers. Except for the prohibition against taxing exports. The Constitution laid down two rules by which the two classes of taxes were to be governed. They were the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises). However, when the MONEY-CHANGERS took over control of our Treasury in 1913, they needed a way to collect the interest (tribute) from our nation. Was it through fraud and deceit just like the serpent in the Garden of Eden? Or, was it just a coincidence the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was also passed in 1913? The IRS is nothing more than the collection agency of the tribute the Federal Reserve charges us on their "worthless" paper money. DON'T BELIEVE ME! Look at the last check you sent to the IRS. Its endorsed "PAY ANY F.R.B. [Federal Reserve Bank] BRANCH OR GEN. DEPOSITORY FOR CREDIT U.S. TREASURY. THIS IS IN PAYMENT OF U.S. OBLIGATIONS; MUST BE PAID AT PAR N.P. DO NOT WIRE NON-PAYMENT"

from: You Be The Judge and Jury is a FREE on-line book exposing the acts of rebellion, sedition, insurrection and treason being committed by the Federal Reserve, IRS, U.S. Government against We the People.  The United States Government,  Federal Reserve Banks, IRS, Internal Revenue Service,  the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Governors, lawyers, judges, FBI, and CIA have been committing treason, rebellion, insurrection, and waging war against its people under the War Powers Act of 1917, as amended, March 9, 1933.  It's all right here in black and white!

(imagine that, anti-jewish arguments. and i quoted jews. i guess they're anti-jewish jews? i wonder why?

oh, and sayan. don't bother. i have no wish to convince you of anything. you're already convinced of your masters' views.)

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

For the IRS to deposit your income tax check into Federal Reserve Banks is in direct violation of Internal Revenue Code, Section 7809 (a) Deposit of Collections, which states: ". . . the gross amount of all taxes and revenue received under the provisions of this title and collection of whatever nature received or collected by authority of any Internal Revenue law, shall be deposited daily into the Treasury of the United States under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections . . ."

Why aren't your tax dollars deposited into the U.S. Treasury? Why, because while we were sleeping somebody STOLE AMERICA! WAKE-UP! We have been SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!

I am absolutely amazed how many people think their tax dollars are used for running the government. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Former President Reagan, stated the following in his 1984 Grace Commission Report on government waste: "100% of what is collect is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments." In other words all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the government services. These services are financed by the government going further into debt to the MONEY-CHANGERS.

(it is a fact, that no matter how many facts i present you with you insist on the "truthiness" of gov propaganda and lies.)

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Ooh, you are back to the Sayan! So effective! Oh yes, really wins you points with the power of your arguments. *rolls eyes*

As a matter of fact, I had long discussions with QRS about many world events, and she convinced me about the Fed. So I am convince-able.

It is you, who I think also sidelines as Appy/Thor, who is unconvinceable, no matter how many facts are thrown your way.

(sarcasm on)That's fine. Your hatred really gets you far in arguing your case. Soooo effective. You really are on the right side of history when you preach your hatred.(/sarcasm off)

I think you really need to get laid. If you had sex, I think you would feel better. Mind you, I am not offering it, but I am sure there is someone somewhere (perhaps a blind person?) who can fulfill your needs. Perhaps then, after you have been relieved of the incredible tension, you will see things clearly.

Then again, I could be a tad too optimistic here. ;-)

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

For the record, let me quote what I had to say earlier. You can find it IN THIS THREAD.


I think you need to edit that comment. It is one long link, and I do not think you intended that.


When you respond with FACTS and PROOF, it takes me a while to sift throught it. I will read it later and come back to you. If you are right, I will concede it. But your anti-Jewish arguments from the other thread simply do not help your case. At all.

Your anger at me is just senseless. I already said I will look at the documents you presented. This goes back to what I said earlier. I think you need to get laid.

Perhaps we should start a "get JC laid" website. Maybe that will get you someone.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...


At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...


for your information. i harbor no hate against anyone. that's a fact. a fact that as many others won't matter much to you but there you go. you reltaion to facts is comparable to a streetwalker's relation to her tricks: touch and go.

i'm not saying you're a streetwalker by the way. it's an analogy i merely find descriptive. and i've known streetwalker's with better character and judgement than you.

as for you as an individual, i don't hate you either. funnily enough. but you character is not something i rate with any high regard. another fact.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


If you do not hate Jews, then why the ridiculous barrage of anti-Jewish statements in a thread about the Fed, where I was agreeing with you? You may say you are not a hater, but a rose by any other name, wouldn't smell as (un)sweet.

What is funny is that I actually was going to read over the massive documentation you gave concerning the IRS. You then had to jump in and (attempt to) insult me for pretty much no reason. Well, I would be insulted, if I didn't view insults from you to be compliments, and statements about my "low" character from you to be proof of my high character.

But you get the point.

You catch more flies with honey, rather than with vinegar. I actually have changed my mind on issues when presented with facts - I no longer believe targeted strikes in Iran are a good idea. (Thanks New York Times/Christopher Hitchens) I also am wary about interest and the Fed. (thanks Qrswave). In fact, I am more open to changing my mind about things than most.

That is why I am so amused at your utter anger at me. It really is just FUNNY!

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

those anti jewish statements were written by jews. did you miss that?

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

and explain to me, in what way were they anti-jewish. cause i've actually been wondering how come these facts were never presented to me in school? or why has hollywood not made a movie?

is it because the crimes were committed by jews and thus that any depiction or accout of these crimes is automatically anti-jewish?

are the jews who wrtoe these things anti-jewish?

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


So? Norm Finkelstein, Jew and child of Holocaust survivors, has stated the Holocaust does not exist. He has said his own parents lie.

Just because a Jew has said anti-Jewish facts does not make it true.

Am I supposed to care that Jews themselves have said anti-Jewish facts? Meanwhile, saying statements that apply to all religions, and yet pretending it only applies to Jews - that is classic anti-Jewish hatred.

Those facts you stated about Jews had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. They also could be applied equally to every single religious group.

Every single religious group has members who have exploited others and are racist. Every single religious group has bad eggs. Judaism is no different.

Is Richard Perle a bad egg? He is an AWFUL egg! He is also Jewish. Does he represent Judaism? No! he is one amongst many! Arafat was Muslim, and he died with about $20 BILLION dollars in his bank account - money that was sent to Palestinians, and was pocketed by him, in a corrupt manner. He was a bad Muslim egg. George W. Bush is a bad Christian egg.

Every religion has their bad people and their good people. By inserting such stupid arguments into a thread about the Fed, all you do is feed into the propoganda often spouted, that it is a conspiracy theory to be against the Fed, propoganted by those who hate Jews.

It is pretty obvious. I have no idea why you refuse to see it, and prefer to de-legitimize your cause with hate-riotic statements.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

you know what r, you keep talking about facts and you twist them again and again.

1) norman finklestein does not, has not denied the holocaust. he cries shame on the "holocaust industry." read his book.

2) not that it matters to you, you'll keep insisting on it regardless, but i don't hate jews. and i see no need to justify myself to you.

3) three i quoted more people than norm finkelstein, and, you say:

"Just because a Jew has said anti-Jewish facts does not make it true."

but what am i to make of this sentence? first let's take away the qualifier:

"Just because a Jew has said […] facts does not make it true."

why is that? are all jews liars? and are facts not facts? what are you saying here?

(i don't think you'll answer as you so far have never answered one simple question i've asked, nor argued your point, but have tried your best to slur, smear and generally drive any discourse into the level of sleaze you feel so comfortable with. ref: the final part of your last comment.)

then there's the qualifier itself, what exactly is an "anti-jewish fact"?

(a) a fact that casts some jews (the perps) in a bad light?
(b) a fact that cannot be accepted as a fact because it involves jews?

4) i really don't care whether the fed is all jewish, half jewish half wasp, three quarter jewish, ten prcent muslim and the rest wasp. ot should be shut down. that's it.

5) re the quotes to the fed post. i posted those because i actually wanted to see your reaction to those particular facts. and they are facts found in books by jewish historians. and lo and behold! jc=thor=jew hater or "hatriot," as you would have it.

your calumny of myself for posting them and the authors who actually did the research and with "brutal honesty" recorded these facts doesn't make them any less true. they remain facts.

only you deny them. like so much else. you who continue to claim that others are not interested in facts, you're the one who has most trouble with them.

you who accuse others of bias, you are yourself biased. but your bias is according to you the gospel truth. and woe to he who does not submit. cause if you can't pummel people with bias you resort to lewdness and slander. this does nothing but reveal who you are. and yes, i find this less than likeable.

i admit i'd prefer a world were people did not sink so low for so little. i'm an american and i'm actually proud of what america once was. we used to honor speech and eloquence and our great authors and poets.

now we reward the guttersnipes and the imbecilic. this is progrees they say, but, no, i don't approve of it. damned if i do.

and guess what? i for one won't submit to your version of facts.

there are crimes being committed against my people and my country. some of the criminals happen to be jews. i don't care. i'm a talk about the crimes and the criminals as i see fit.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

we used to honor God and morals, now we honor the buck and the muck. i find that deplorabel and i will continue to say so.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


Baby doll, I did not DENY any of the facts. Rather, I find it spurious that you cited them as they have zero relevance to the Fed.

If you want to talk about the Fed, fine, talk about it. If you want to talk about Jews, then start a thread and talk about them. To talk about the Jews in a thread about the Fed simply makes it seem that your arguments against the Fed are based on an anti-Jewish agenda. It de-legitimizes all you had to say.

Did I deny any of what you stated? No! I denied their significance.

Now, I know for some of the "simple folk," that would seem the same as a denial. But it is not.

I am saying you are anti-Jewish for stating facts that apply to all races, creeds, and colors, and pretending they apply to only Jews alone. Your quotes about "Jewish landlords," as if somehow they are a particular problem is nonesensical, because it assumes that otehr races, creeds, and colors are not also landlords who do not also have their own issues.

If I resort to lewdness, it is because I find you comical. You take yourself so seriously, as if you are the beacon of FACT in the world, when you are anything but. You are a comical figure, so I treat you as such. To be honest, I have gotten many a laugh out of your posts.

Oh, and Normal Finkelstein did say what I said he said.


Act like an adult, apply the same standards to all races, creeds, and colors, and then I will treat you like an adult, rather than a comical figure to be mocked.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

And for the record, baby doll, OF COURSE nothing is necessarily true because "Jew" has said it.

It is also not necessarily true if a Muslim said it. Or a Christian. Or a Hindu. OR ANYONE!

To pretend that somehow one religion has the monopoly on truth is nonsensical. To pretend that I said that any one religion has a monopoly on truth is comical.

You are a funny guy, JC. Thanks for the laugh!

You're hysterical! :-D

At Friday, March 10, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

One last thing. I have no idea what question I didn't answer. I have repeatedly stated I have problems with the Fed, do not back every single thing Israel has done (but have problems with the demonization of the nation), did not support either the Iraq or Afghani wars, and was willing to look at the evidence you presented concerning the IRS. I even changed my mind on Iran and decided it is a bad idea to have a targeted air strike!

I honestly have no idea what question I am not answering. I do know that the animus against me formed because I am pro-free speech and believe that obscenity laws should be abolished. Fine. I am proud of the first amendment and I am proud to be a human being who actually has a sexuality.

Guess what? I may disagree with what you have to say. I may think you are a bigot, but I defend the right for you to be a bigot.

Should anyone try to censor you, I would be the first one offering pro bono legal services. I would be the first one writing to Congressmen and local newspapers. I believe that strongly in the first amendment. I wonder if you believe in anything so strongly, other than blind hate? And if you don't hate, you sure are good at pretending that you do!

At Saturday, March 11, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

One more thing. Back to the topic of the IRS, which this was supposed to be about.

I read your links, JC. You do have a point about the IRS. I am not convinced about it being some non-governmental body, but it is a form of taking and should be unconstitutional, except for the 16th amendment, as well as a few Supreme Court cases which I think were decided the wrong way.



Post a Comment

<< Home