The Act of 1871, The IRS and The Federal Reserve Act

The Act of 1871:

The first thing we must learn is that the United States of America is not what we were taught to believe it is. It is a corporation. It became the, for-profit, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC via the Act of 1871. Our government/corporation is owned by international bankers & aristocracy, or Black Nobility families of Europe, and the Vatican (more in a future post).

The act passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted due to the Civil War. This was a strategic move by foreign interests who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and the neck of America, which is leading to the New World Order. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur debt to said bankers. The bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations and they had ways to turn it all to their benefit.

The corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced, in effect sabotaged, when the title of the United States was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of”. Capitalization is significant when one is referring to a legal document.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the Incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on EVERY subsequent generation of American citizens. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia… an INCORPORATED government. This altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution. It is Fascist.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed treason against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, We the People now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s (we the people) right to travel, which was transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed. Think of all the licensing needed to build a home, open a business, etc, etc, ad nauseum!

The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since, committed by government (corporate) officials.

The owners of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are inbred sociopaths. The Rothschilds, Merovingians, Van Duyns, DuPonts, Rockefellers, and the additional (known)13 Black Nobility families, have changed their names throughout history, to obfuscate their bloodlines, to hide their vast wealth and their hunger for power and control–of the entire world! Their lineage goes back to the Nephilim kings of the Bible. Throughout the centuries, their strong, long-held belief is their “Divine Right to Rule”, and these families have slowly, systematically and quietly been building the foundations needed since the days of Nimrod. These are the satanic Sabbatian Frankists today, otherwise known as crypto Zionists/Ashkenazi or Khazarian Jews and Knights Templar (Jesuits). They merged long ago & will be covered in future report.

The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions

The IRS:

After gaining independence from Britain, the early Americans were wary of abusive taxes and the control that taxation created. Those Americans did not grant the federal government authority to enforce taxation, at first. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could request taxes from the states, but was strictly voluntary by the states. When this system proved to be ineffective, the framers of the U.S. Constitution made sure that Congress could indeed “lay and collect” taxes. But even then, it didn’t require an agency to collect those taxes. The states were responsible for collecting federal taxes on goods like sugar, liquor & tobacco. For decades, Americans paid taxes on various domestic products (excise taxes), imports (custom taxes) and exports (tariffs), but they were never taxed on ANY portion of their wages.

President Abraham Lincoln pushed for the first income tax. This was sold to the public as a way to help pay for the Civil War. As early as March 1861, Lincoln was concerned about maintaining federal authority over collecting revenue from ports along the southeastern seaboard, which he worried might fall under the control of the Confederacy. He sent letters to cabinet members Edward Bates, Gideon Welles and Salmon Chase, requesting their legal opinions as to whether or not the president had the constitutional authority to collect such duties (according to documents housed and interpreted by the Library of Congress.)

This led to the beginning of the taxing of American’s income. Although it started small, the ncome tax dramatically grew in the coming years due to war and Congress’ responses to drastic economic fluctuations. Although modest by current standards, the 3% & 5% income tax on people earning over $800 & $10,000 in annual income, respectively, meant an enormous increase in tax revenue. In addition, Congress also passed a tax on corporations during this period. Enforcing & collecting so much tax revenue required an agency. This is how the first federal tax collection agency–the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)–was born. The BIR was short-lived, however. While taxpayers stomached taxes imposed during wartime, tolerance dwindled after peace was restored. Congress repealed Lincoln’s tax law in 1871. Some years later, in 1895, Congress tried to pass an income tax again. But the Supreme Court quickly declared it unconstitutional because the Constitution only allowed direct taxes to be imposed in proportion to state population.

Then in 1913 Congress ratified the 16th Amendment, which set in place the federal income tax system, used to this day. But was the 16th Amendment actually ratified? Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” makes a convincing case that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State, Philander Knox, was not merely in error but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February of 1913.

Some of the major findings for many of the states show that their ratifications were not legal & should not have been counted. When Secretary Knox sent the proposed 16th Amendment to the states, officially certified, signed & sealed copies were mailed. Likewise, when the state results were returned to Knox, the documents were to be properly certified, signed & sealed by the appropriate officials. This is no more than what ordinary citizens do in filing legal documents so authenticity is assured. Otherwise they are not acceptable, thus meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment?!

A number of states returned uncertified, unsigned, and/or copies with no seal, and they did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi & Minnesota–which did not return any at all. In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even receiving it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress! This was the version they sent back to Knox, yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, advising that the states were not allowed to change the verbiage in any way. More info in this article: https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

The Federal Reserve Act:

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act is U.S. legislation that created the current Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency & has no reserves. (The $35 per ounce gold price was held by the government until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard.) Instead fiat currency is created from thin air in a digital manner and thrives on debt created by nations and citizens. Remember the United States has been a for-profit corporation since 1871. All legislation, acts, trade agreements, laws & agencies were, and are, created by the “government”, for profit, that falls on the citizenry who “foots the bill”.

In an article published in the New York Times in 1907, Rothschild banking family agent, Paul Warburg, a successful German-born financier & partner at the investment bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co., wrote that the “United States’ financial system was at about the same point that had been reached by Europe at the time of the Medicis, a Black Nobility family, and at the time of Hammurabi’s Code” (Warburg 1907). [Around 1771, BCE, Hammurabi, king of the Babylonian Empire, decreed a set of laws to better govern his burgeoning empire. Known today as the Code of Hammurabi. His 282 laws are the earliest & most complete written legal codes from ancient times.] Just months after Warburg wrote those words, the country was struck by the Panic of 1907. The panic galvanized the U.S. Congress, particularly Republican senator Nelson Aldrich, chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

In 1908, Aldrich sponsored a bill and created the National Monetary Commission to study reforms to the financial system. Aldrich quickly hired several advisers to the commission, including Henry Davison, a partner at J.P. Morgan (Rothschild agent), and A. Piatt Andrew, U.S. House of Representatives 1921–1936 & economics professor at Harvard. Aldrich & Davison chose attendees for their secret planning meeting. Aldrich knew the attendees’ ties to Wall Street would arouse suspicion about their motives which would threaten the bill’s political passage. So, he formulated the ruse of a duck hunting trip, instructing the men to arrive at the New Jersey train station where they could board his private car. Once aboard, the men used only first names to prevent the train staff from learning their identities, becoming the ‘First Name Club’. On November 10, 1910, Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip & Paul Warburg arrived at the secluded Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of GA, to lay the foundations for the Federal Reserve System, to reform America’s banking system. The meeting and its purpose were closely guarded secrets & participants did not admit that the meeting occurred until the 1930s.

With Congress ready to begin session in just a few weeks, Aldrich convened the group to write the proposal for the establishment of a central bank in America. An additional member of the First Name Club was Benjamin Strong, vice president of the Bankers Trust Company & the future founding chief executive officer–then called governor, now called president–of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Most scholars & journalists who have written about the issue concluded Strong did not attend (Forbes 1916). Strong had worked closely with the Jekyll Island attendees in other venues & his ideas were certainly present at the meeting even if he was not there in person.

Aldrich and his colleagues quickly realized that while they agreed on some broad principles establishing an “elastic” currency supplied by a bank holding the reserves of all banks, they disagreed on the details. In Warburg’s words, figuring out those details “was a desperately trying undertaking”. Completely secluded, the men woke up early and worked late into the night for more than a week. “We had disappeared from the world onto a deserted island”, and “we put in the most intense period of work that I have ever had”, Vanderlip recalled in his autobiography.

At the end of their stay on Jekyll Island, Aldrich & his colleagues had developed a plan for a Reserve Association of America, a single central bank with fifteen branches across the country. Each branch would be governed by boards of directors elected by the member banks in each district, with larger banks getting more votes. The branches would be responsible for holding the reserves of their member banks; issuing currency; discounting commercial paper; transferring balances between branches; and check clearing & collection. The national body would set discount rates for the system as a whole, buying and selling securities. A system based on the first known banking system of the Knights Templar.

After the meeting, the First Name Club revised the plan & prepared it for publication. Strong was frequently consulted, and according to Forbes, “joined the ‘First-Name Club’ as ‘Ben’” (Forbes 1922).

Shortly after returning home, Aldrich became ill & was unable to write the group’s final report. So Vanderlip & Strong traveled to Washington to get the plan ready for Congress. Aldrich presented it to the National Monetary Commission in January 1911 without telling the commission members how the plan had been developed. A final report went to Congress a year later with a few minor changes, including naming the new institution the National Reserve Association. In a letter accompanying the report, the Commission said it had created an institution “scientific in its method, and democratic in its control.” But many people objected to the version of democracy it presented, which could have allowed the largest banks to exert outsized influence on the central bank’s leadership.

With the presidential election coming up, the Democrats made the Aldrich plan a part of their platform. Leaders of the Democratic Party were also interested in reform, including President Wilson & the chairs of the House & Senate Committees on Banking & Currency, and Carter Glass & Robert Owen, respectively. Glass and Owen both introduced proposals to form a central banking system based on draft legislation supported by Wilson. Glass & Owen directly consulted with Warburg, whose technical expertise was respected by Democratic & Republican politicians alike. Wilson’s chief political adviser (handler), Col. E. M. House, met & corresponded with Warburg to discuss banking reform in general and the Glass & Owen plans in particular, as did William McAdoo & Henry Morgenthau, Sr. Political & Policy Advisers to Wilson. Morgenthau assured Warburg that he sent his copy of the memorandum to President Wilson” (Warburg 1930). Together, these ideas formed the basis of the final Federal Reserve Act, which Congress passed & the president signed in December 1913. The technical details of the final bill closely resembled those of the Aldrich Plan. The major differences were the political & decision-making structures, which was a compromise acceptable to both the progressive & populist wings (of the same bird).

B.C. Forbes somehow learned about the Jekyll Island trip & wrote about it in 1916 in an article published in Leslie’s Weekly (October 19, 1916 p. 423), which was recapitulated a few months later in an article in the magazine Current Opinion. In 1917, Forbes again described the meeting in Men Who Are Making America, a collection of short biographies of prominent entrepreneurs, including Davison, Vanderlip, and Warburg. Not many people noticed the revelation, and those who did dismissed it as “a mere yarn,” according to Aldrich’s biographer.

The participants themselves denied the meeting had occurred for twenty years, until the publication of Aldrich’s biography in 1930. The impetus for coming clean was probably the publication in 1927 of Carter Glass’s memoir, An Adventure in Constructive Finance. In it, Glass, by now a senator, claimed credit for the key ideas in the Federal Reserve Act, which prompted the Jekyll Island participants to reveal their roles in creating the Federal Reserve.

Warburg was especially critical of Glass’s description of events. In 1930, he published a two-volume book describing the origins of the Fed, including a line-by-line comparison of the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill to prove their similarity. In the introduction he wrote, “I had gone to California for a three months’ rest when the appearance of a series of articles written by Senator Glass impelled me to lay down in black and white my recollections of certain events in the history of banking reform.” Warburg’s book does not mention Jekyll Island specifically, although he states that

“In November, 1910, I was invited to join a small group of men who, at Senator Aldrich’s request, were to take part in a several days’ conference with him, to discuss the form that the new banking bill should take. When the conference closed, the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon. The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact that there had been a meeting that was not permitted to become public. Though eighteen years have gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy. I understand, however, a history of Senator Aldrich’s life will contain an authorized account of this episode” (Warburg 1930, pp. 58-60).

Disagreements over authorship of the Federal Reserve Act received widespread publicity in the late 1920s. Glass defended his claim for the lion’s share of the credit in speeches, in his book, and in submissions to prominent publications including the New York Evening Post and the New York Times. Critics responded in similar venues and academic journals. For example, Samuel Untermyer, former counsel to the House Committee on Banking and Currency, published a pamphlet titled “Who is Entitled to the Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass,” in which he asserted that Glass’s claims of primary authorship were “fiction, fable, and a work of imagination”

In 1914, Edwin Seligman, a prominent professor at Columbia University, wrote that “in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg, more than any of the other men.” In 1927, Seligman and Glass debated this point in a series of letters published in the New York Times.

The Jekyll Island Club never bounced back from the Great Depression, when many of its members resigned, closing in 1942. Today, its former clubhouse and cottages are National Historic Landmarks. But the debates at and about the conference on Jekyll Island remain relevant today.

Forbes, B.C. Men Who Are Making America. New York: B.C. Forbes Publishing Co., Inc., 1917.

Forbes, B.C. “How the Federal Reserve Bank Was Evolved by Five Men on Jekyll Island.” Current Opinion vol. 61, no. 6 (December 1916): pp. 382-383.

Glass, Carter. An Adventure in Constructive Finance. New York: Doubleday, 1927.

Glass, Carter, “Mr. Warburg and the Bank: A Reply to Prof. Seligman on the Paternity of the Federal Reserve,” New York Times, February 15, 1927, p. 24.

Lamont, Thomas. Henry P. Davison: The Record of a Useful Life. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1933. To Create the Federal Reserve. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.

New York Times. “Untermyer Assails Glass on Bank Act: Calls His History of Federal Reserve Fiction and Its Author Credulous. Claims Glory for Owen. Wilson, McAdoo and Bryan also Entitled to Credit …” June 20, 1927, p. 4.

Seligman, Edwin R. “Introduction: Essays on Banking Reform in the United States, by Paul M. Warburg.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science vol. 4, no. 4 (July 1914): pp. 3-6.

Seligman, Edwin R., “The Federal Reserve Act. Professor Seligman Takes Issue with a Statement by Senator Glass,” New York Times, February 1, 1927, p. 26.

Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Politics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. Reissued in 1971 by Kennikat Press.

JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve: Who Sank the Titanic?

Untermyer, Samuel. “Who Is Entitled to Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass.” Manuscript, June 19, 1927. Available at http://www.okhistory.org/historycenter/federalreserve/untermeyer.pdf

The Rise And The Fall Of The Bankster (Full Movie)