Victoria Grant Tops a Million Views!

12-year old Victoria Grant explains why her country, Canada, and most of the world, has been being robbed and bankrupted:

Have you ever wondered why Canada is in debt? Have you ever wondered why the government forces Canadians to pay so many taxes? Have you ever wondered why the bankers from the largest private banks are becoming wealthier, and the rest of us are not? Have you ever wondered why the gross national debt is over $800 billion dollars? Or, why we are spending $160 million dollars a day on the interest of the national debt? That is $60 billion dollars a year! Have you ever wondered who receives the $60 billion dollars?

What I have discovered is the banks and the government have colluded to financially enslave the people of Canada.

I will share with you three important points of reference which will hopefully spark enough interest and concern for you to continue the research on your own and to engage your government to stop this criminal act against the people of Canada.

  • First, we will briefly examine the Bank of Canada;
  • Second, we will see how the banking system works today;
  • And lastly, I will offer a viable solution that we can petition our government to implement.

A very little known figure in Canadian history is Gerald Grattan McGeer. He was a lawyer, a Member of Parliament and Mayor of Vancouver. His contribution to Canada is probably one of the greatest in our history. He championed the creation of the National Bank of Canada whose sole purpose is to create and manage Canada’s money. It was formed on July 3rd, 1934 and owned by all Canadians.

Until the 1970’s, because of the Bank of Canada, Canada’s national debt was held at a constant manageable level until the government decided to implement what we now have as our modern banking system that is robbing the Canadian people. So how are they robbing us?

Allow me to explain how our private banks and government work today: first the Canadian government borrows money from the Private Banks. They then lend the debt based money to Canada, with compounded interest. The government then continues to increase taxation of Canadians, year after year, in order to pay back the interest on the exponentially growing national debt. What results is inflation, less real money for Canadians to spend into our economy, and the real money being used to pad the pockets of the banks.

As well, the government gave the banks the ability to loan out money that doesn’t exist in the form of loans. When a bank actually gives you a mortgage, which literally means a death pledge, or a loan, the banks do not actually give you money. They click a key on a computer and generate the fake money out of thin air. They don’t actually have it in their bank vaults. Presently, the banks only have 4 billion dollars on reserve, but they have loaned out over 1.5 Trillion dollars.

To quote Graham Towers, Each and every time a bank makes a loan, a new bank credit is created, brand new money. Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a bank in the form of loans. As loans are debt, then under the present system all money is debt.

What I find interesting is that even Jesus (in Matthew 21) drove out the money changers from the temple, because they were manipulating the currency to steal money from the people.

The private banks are just like the money changers in Matthew 21. They are defrauding and robbing the people of Canada of their money, and thus their freedom, and they need to be stopped.

How should the banking system work?

In an infamous interview Mr. McGeer asked Mr. Towers, Can you tell me why a government with power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?

Mr. Towers replied: If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the powers of Parliament.  (Source: http://lybio.net/ )

In other words, if the Canadian government needs money, they can borrow it directly from the Bank of Canada. The people would then pay fair taxes to repay the Bank of Canada; this tax money would in turn get injected back into our economic infrastructure and the debt would be wiped out. Canadians would again prosper with real money as the foundation of our economic structure and not debt money.

Regarding, the debt money that is owed the private banks such as the Royal Bank, we would simply have the Bank of Canada print the money owing, hand it over to the private banks, and then clear the debt with the Bank of Canada. And yes, we have the power and lawful right to do so.

In conclusion, it has become painfully obvious, even for me, a 12 year old Canadian, that we are being defrauded and robbed by the banking system and a complicit government.

What will we do to stop this crime? What will we do to ensure that the next generation will live free and clear of the debt based economy that enslaves them to the bankers?

Margaret Mead said, and I hope that all of you remember this: “Never doubt that a small group of commited people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  

Thank you.

Out of the Mouths of Babes: Twelve-Year-Old Money Reformer Tops a Million Views

By Ellen Brown publicbankinginstitute.org

The youtube video of 12-year old Victoria Grant speaking at the Public Banking in America Conference has gone viral, topping a million views on various websites.

Monetary reform—the contention that governments, not banks, should create and lend a nation’s money—has rarely even made the news, so this is a first.  Either the times they are a-changin’, or Victoria managed to frame the message in a way that was so simple and clear that even a child could understand it.

Basically, her message was that banks create money “out of thin air” and lend it to people and governments at interest.  If governments borrowed from their own banks, they could keep the interest and save a lot of money for the taxpayers.

She said her own country of Canada actually did this, from 1939 to 1974.  During that time, the government’s debt was low and sustainable, and it funded all sorts of remarkable things.  Only when the government switched to borrowing privately did it acquire a crippling national debt.

Borrowing privately means selling bonds at market rates of interest (which in Canada quickly shot up to 22%), and the money for these bonds is ultimately created by private banks.  For the latter point, Victoria quoted Graham Towers, head of the Bank of Canada for the first twenty years of its history.  He said:

Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money.  Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.  As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.

Towers was asked, “Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?”  He replied, “If Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.”

In other words, said Victoria, “If the Canadian government needs money, they can borrow it directly from the Bank of Canada. The people would then pay fair taxes to repay the Bank of Canada. This tax money would in turn get injected back into the economic infrastructure and the debt would be wiped out.  Canadians would again prosper with real money as the foundation of our economic structure and not debt money. Regarding the debt money owed to the private banks such as the Royal Bank, we would simply have the Bank of Canada print the money owing, hand it over to the private banks, and then clear the debt to the Bank of Canada.”

Problem solved; case closed.

But critics said, “Not so fast.”  Victoria might be charming, but she was naïve.

One critic was William Watson, writing in the Canadian newspaper The National Post in an article titled “No, Victoria, There Is No Money Monster.”  Interestingly, he did not deny Victoria’s contention that “When you take out a mortgage, the bank creates the money by clicking on a key and generating ‘fake money out of thin air.’”  Watson acknowledged:

Well, yes, that’s true of any “fractional-reserve” banking system. Even before they were regulated, even before there was a Bank of Canada, banks understood they didn’t have to keep reserves equal to the total amount of money they’d lent out: They could count on most depositors most of the time not showing up to take out their money all at once. Which means, as any introduction to monetary economics will tell you, banks can indeed “create” money.

What he disputed was that the Canadian government’s monster debt was the result of paying high interest rates to banks.  Rather, he said:

We have a big public debt because, starting in the early 1970s and continuing for three full decades, our governments spent more on all sorts of things, including interest, than they collected in taxes. . . . The problem was the idea, still widely popular, from the Greek parliament to the streets of Montreal, that governments needn’t pay their bills.

That contention is countered, however, by the Canadian government’s own Auditor General (the nation’s top accountant, who reviews the government’s books).  In 1993, the Auditor General noted in his annual report:

The cost of borrowing and its compounding effect have a significant impact on Canada’s annual deficits. From Confederation up to 1991-92, the federal government accumulated a net debt of $423 billion. Of this, $37 billion represents the accumulated shortfall in meeting the cost of government programs since Confederation. The remainder, $386 billion, represents the amount the government has borrowed to service the debt created by previous annual shortfalls.

In other words, 91% of the debt consists of compounded interest charges.  Subtract those and the government would have a debt of only C$37 billion, very low and sustainable, just as it was before 1974.

Mr. Watson’s final argument was that borrowing from the government’s own bank would be inflationary.  He wrote:

Victoria’s solution is that instead of paying market rates the government should borrow directly from the Bank of Canada and pay only token rates of interest. Because the government owns the bank, the tax revenues it raises in order to pay that interest would then somehow be injected directly back into the economy. In other words, money literally printed to cover the government’s deficit would be put into circulation. But how is that not inflationary?

Let’s see.  The government can borrow money that ultimately comes from private banks, which admittedly create it out of thin air, and soak the taxpayers for a whopping interest bill; or it can borrow from its own bank, which also creates the money out of thin air, and avoid the interest.

Even a 12-year old can see how this argument is going to come out.


Huffington Post Victoria Grant, 12, Hits Lecture Circuit To Explain How Canadian Banking Is A Fraud: 

The Canadian Press  12-year-old blasts Canada’s banks. Victoria Grant’s critique of financial system goes viral:  www.cbc.ca

Toronto Star  How a speech on banking by 12-year-old Victoria Grant, 12, went viral:   www.thestar.com

RT  They’re robbing us: 12-year-old exposes Canada’s banking flaws, goes viral:  rt.com/news/canada-banking-child

MetroNews.ca  Victoria Grant to tackle private banking in new video:  metronews.ca


Victoria Grant on Press4TruthTV,  a 12 year old Canadian patriot: 

pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/victoria-grant

Interview w public banking activist Victoria Grant:

12 yr old interview Victoria and Marcia Grant on Money Creation:

Victoria Grant Public Banking 2013: Funding the New Economy:

It’s Our Money! — with Ellen Brown



Ellen Hodgson Brown, J.D
.,
developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. She is the author of 12 books. In Web of Debt, she traces the history and evolution of the current private banking system. She shows how it has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her over 300 blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.  She is the inspiration and thought leader behind the Public Banking Institute, where she serves as Chairman and President. She has degrees from UC Berkeley and UCLA School of Law.

See:  Ellen Brown, author, attorney, speaker, activist

“It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” provides a unique view behind the curtain of global finance and the monetary system by one of the top experts in the field: 

itsourmoney.podbean.com

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people

According to a new study from Princeton University, American democracy no longer exists. Using data from over 1,800 policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of – or even against – the will of the majority of voters. America’s political system has transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where power is wielded by wealthy elites.

“Making the world safe for democracy” was President Woodrow Wilson’s rationale for World War I, and it has been used to justify American military intervention ever since. Can we justify sending troops into other countries to spread a political system we cannot maintain at home?

The Magna Carta, considered the first Bill of Rights in the Western world, established the rights of nobles as against the king. But the doctrine that “all men are created equal” – that all people have “certain inalienable rights,” including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – is an American original. And those rights, supposedly insured by the Bill of Rights, have the right to vote at their core. We have the right to vote but the voters’ collective will no longer prevails.

In Greece, the left-wing populist Syriza Party came out of nowhere to take the presidential election by storm; and in Spain, the populist Podemos Party appears poised to do the same. But for over a century, no third-party candidate has had any chance of winning a US presidential election. We have a two-party winner-take-all system, in which our choice is between two candidates, both of whom necessarily cater to big money. It takes big money just to put on the mass media campaigns required to win an election involving 240 million people of voting age.

In state and local elections, third party candidates have sometimes won. In a modest-sized city, candidates can actually influence the vote by going door to door, passing out flyers and bumper stickers, giving local presentations, and getting on local radio and TV. But in a national election, those efforts are easily trumped by the mass media. And local governments too are beholden to big money.

When governments of any size need to borrow money, the megabanks in a position to supply it can generally dictate the terms. Even in Greece, where the populist Syriza Party managed to prevail in January, the anti-austerity platform of the new government is being throttled by the moneylenders who have the government in a chokehold.

How did we lose our democracy? Were the Founding Fathers remiss in leaving something out of the Constitution? Or have we simply gotten too big to be governed by majority vote?

Democracy’s Rise and Fall

The stages of the capture of democracy by big money are traced in a paper called “The Collapse of Democratic Nation States” by theologian and environmentalist Dr. John Cobb. Going back several centuries, he points to the rise of private banking, which usurped the power to create money from governments:

The influence of money was greatly enhanced by the emergence of private banking.  The banks are able to create money and so to lend amounts far in excess of their actual wealth.  This control of money-creation . . . has given banks overwhelming control over human affairs.  In the United States, Wall Street makes most of the truly important decisions that are directly attributed to Washington.

Today the vast majority of the money supply in Western countries is created by private bankers. That tradition goes back to the 17th century, when the privately-owned Bank of England, the mother of all central banks, negotiated the right to print England’s money after Parliament stripped that power from the Crown. When King William needed money to fight a war, he had to borrow. The government as borrower then became servant of the lender.

In America, however, the colonists defied the Bank of England and issued their own paper scrip; and they thrived. When King George forbade that practice, the colonists rebelled.

They won the Revolution but lost the power to create their own money supply, when they opted for gold rather than paper money as their official means of exchange. Gold was in limited supply and was controlled by the bankers, who surreptitiously expanded the money supply by issuing multiple banknotes against a limited supply of gold.

This was the system euphemistically called “fractional reserve” banking, meaning only a fraction of the gold necessary to back the banks’ privately-issued notes was actually held in their vaults. These notes were lent at interest, putting citizens and the government in debt to bankers who created the notes with a printing press. It was something the government could have done itself debt-free, and the American colonies had done with great success until England went to war to stop them.

President Abraham Lincoln revived the colonists’ paper money system when he issued the Treasury notes called “Greenbacks” that helped the Union win the Civil War. But Lincoln was assassinated, and the Greenback issues were discontinued.

In every presidential election between 1872 and 1896, there was a third national party running on a platform of financial reform. Typically organized under the auspices of labor or farmer organizations, these were parties of the people rather than the banks. They included the Populist Party, the Greenback and Greenback Labor Parties, the Labor Reform Party, the Antimonopolist Party, and the Union Labor Party. They advocated expanding the national currency to meet the needs of trade, reform of the banking system, and democratic control of the financial system.

The Populist movement of the 1890s represented the last serious challenge to the bankers’ monopoly over the right to create the nation’s money.  According to monetary historian Murray Rothbard, politics after the turn of the century became a struggle between two competing banking giants, the Morgans and the Rockefellers.  The parties sometimes changed hands, but the puppeteers pulling the strings were always one of these two big-money players.

In All the Presidents’ Bankers, Nomi Prins names six banking giants and associated banking families that have dominated politics for over a century. No popular third party candidates have a real chance of prevailing, because they have to compete with two entrenched parties funded by these massively powerful Wall Street banks.

Democracy Succumbs to Globalization

In an earlier era, notes Dr. Cobb, wealthy landowners were able to control democracies by restricting government participation to the propertied class. When those restrictions were removed, big money controlled elections by other means:

First, running for office became expensive, so that those who seek office require wealthy sponsors to whom they are then beholden.  Second, the great majority of voters have little independent knowledge of those for whom they vote or of the issues to be dealt with.  Their judgments are, accordingly, dependent on what they learn from the mass media.  These media, in turn, are controlled by moneyed interests.

Control of the media and financial leverage over elected officials then enabled those other curbs on democracy we know today, including high barriers to ballot placement for third parties and their elimination from presidential debates, vote suppression, registration restrictions, identification laws, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, computer voting, and secrecy in government.

The final blow to democracy, says Dr. Cobb, was “globalization” – an expanding global market that overrides national interests:

[T]oday’s global economy is fully transnational.  The money power is not much interested in boundaries between states and generally works to reduce their influence on markets and investments. . . . Thus transnational corporations inherently work to undermine nation states, whether they are democratic or not.

The most glaring example today is the secret twelve-country trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If it goes through, the TPP will dramatically expand the power of multinational corporations to use closed-door tribunals to challenge and supersede domestic laws, including environmental, labor, health and other protections.

Looking at Alternatives

Some critics ask whether our system of making decisions by a mass popular vote easily manipulated by the paid-for media is the most effective way of governing on behalf of the people. In an interesting Ted Talk, political scientist Eric Li makes a compelling case for the system of “meritocracy” that has been quite successful in China.

In America Beyond Capitalism, Prof. Gar Alperovitz argues that the US is simply too big to operate as a democracy at the national level. Excluding Canada and Australia, which have large empty landmasses, the United States is larger geographically than all the other advanced industrial countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) combined. He proposes what he calls “The Pluralist Commonwealth”: a system anchored in the reconstruction of communities and the democratization of wealth. It involves plural forms of cooperative and common ownership beginning with decentralization and moving to higher levels of regional and national coordination when necessary. He is co-chair along with James Gustav Speth of an initiative called The Next System Project, which seeks to help open a far-ranging discussion of how to move beyond the failing traditional political-economic systems of both left and Right..

Dr. Alperovitz quotes Prof. Donald Livingston, who asked in 2002:

What value is there in continuing to prop up a union of this monstrous size? . . . [T]here are ample resources in the American federal tradition to justify states’ and local communities’ recalling, out of their own sovereignty, powers they have allowed the central government to usurp.

Taking Back Our Power

If governments are recalling their sovereign powers, they might start with the power to create money, which was usurped by private interests while the people were asleep at the wheel. State and local governments are not allowed to print their own currencies; but they can own banks, and all depository banks create money when they make loans, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged.

The federal government could take back the power to create the national money supply by issuing its own Treasury notes as Abraham Lincoln did. Alternatively, itcould issue some very large denomination coins as authorized in the Constitution; or it could nationalize the central bank and use quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, education, job creation, and social services, responding to the needs of the people rather than the banks.

The freedom to vote carries little weight without economic freedom – the freedom to work and to have food, shelter, education, medical care and a decent retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt maintained that we need an Economic Bill of Rights. If our elected representatives were not beholden to the private moneylenders, they might be able both to pass such a bill and to come up with the money to fund it.

jefferson-94142

Time for an Economic Bill of Rights

Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

We are beginning to understand, and Occupy Wall Street looks like the beginning of the revolution.

We are beginning to understand that our money is created, not by the government, but by banks.  Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself.  The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply.  Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve Banks, all twelve of which are owned by the private banks in their district.  Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached.

According to Margrit Kennedy, a German researcher who has studied this issue extensively, interest now composes 40% of the cost of everything we buy.  We don’t see it on the sales slips, but interest is exacted at every stage of production.  Suppliers need to take out loans to pay for labor and materials, before they have a product to sell.

For government projects, Kennedy found that the average cost of interest is 50%.  If the government owned the banks, it could keep the interest and get these projects at half price.  That means governments—state and federal—could double the number of projects they could afford, without costing the taxpayers a single penny more than we are paying now.

This opens up exciting possibilities.  Federal and state governments could fund all sorts of things we think we can’t afford now, simply by owning their own banks.  They could fund something Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King dreamt of—an Economic Bill of Rights.

A Vision for Tomorrow

In his first inaugural address in 1933, Roosevelt criticized the sort of near-sighted Wall Street greed that precipitated the Great Depression.  He said, “They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers.  They have no vision, and where there is no vision the people perish.”

Roosevelt’s own vision reached its sharpest focus in 1944, when he called for a Second Bill of Rights.  He said:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights . . . . They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

He then enumerated the economic rights he thought needed to be added to the Bill of Rights.  They included:

The right to a job;

The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing;

The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies;

The right to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Times have changed since the first Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791.  When the country was founded, people could stake out some land, build a house on it, farm it, and be self-sufficient.  The Great Depression saw people turned out of their homes and living in the streets—a phenomenon we are seeing again today.  Few people now own their own homes.  Even if you have signed a mortgage, you will be in debt peonage to the bank for 30 years or so before you can claim the home as your own.

Health needs have changed too.  In 1791, foods were natural and nutrient-rich, and outdoor exercise was built into the lifestyle.  Degenerative diseases such as cancer and heart disease were rare.  Today, health insurance for some people can cost as much as rent.

Then there are college loans, which collectively now exceed a trillion dollars, more even than credit card debt.  Students are coming out of universities not just without jobs but carrying a debt of $20,000 or so on their backs.  For medical students and other post-graduate students, it can be $100,000 or more.  Again, that’s as much as a mortgage, with no house to show for it.  The justification for incurring these debts was supposed to be that the students would get better jobs when they graduated, but now jobs are scarce.

After World War II, the G.I. Bill provided returning servicemen with free college tuition, as well as cheap home loans and business loans.  It was called “the G.I. Bill of Rights.”  Studies have shown that the G.I. Bill paid for itself seven times over and is one of the most lucrative investments the government ever made.

The government could do that again—without increasing taxes or the federal debt.  It could do it by recovering the power to create money from Wall Street and the financial services industry, which now claim a whopping 40% of everything we buy.

An Updated Constitution for a New Millennium

Banks acquired the power to create money by default, when Congress declined to claim it at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  The Constitution says only that “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the power thereof.”  The Founders left out not just paper money but checkbook money, credit card money, money market funds, and other forms of exchange that make up the money supply today.  All of them are created by private financial institutions, and they all come into the economy as loans with interest attached.

Governments—state and federal—could bypass the interest tab by setting up their own publicly-owned banks.  Banking would become a public utility, a tool for promoting productivity and trade rather than for extracting wealth from the debtor class.

Congress could go further: it could reclaim the power to issue money from the banks and fund its budget directly.  It could do this, in fact, without changing any laws.  Congress is empowered to “coin money,” and the Constitution sets no limit on the face amount of the coins.  Congress could issue a few one-trillion dollar coins, deposit them in an account, and start writing checks.

The Fed’s own figures show that the money supply has shrunk by $3 trillion since 2008.  That sum could be spent into the economy without inflating prices.  Three trillion dollars could go a long way toward providing the jobs and social services necessary to fulfill an Economic Bill of Rights.  Guaranteeing employment to anyone willing and able to work would increase GDP, allowing the money supply to expand even further without inflating prices, since supply and demand would increase together.

Modernizing the Bill of Rights

As Bob Dylan said, “The times they are a’changin’.”  Revolutionary times call for revolutionary solutions and an updated social contract.  Apple and Microsoft update their programs every year.  We are trying to fit a highly complex modern monetary scheme into a constitutional framework that is 200 years old.

After President Roosevelt died in 1945, his vision for an Economic Bill of Rights was kept alive by Martin Luther King.  “True compassion,” King declared, “is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

MLK too has now passed away, but his vision has been carried on by a variety of money reform groups.  The government as “employer of last resort,” guaranteeing a living wage to anyone who wants to work, is a basic platform of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).  A student of MMT declares on his website that by “[e]nding the enormous unearned profits acquired by the means of the privatization of our sovereign currency. . . [i]t is possible to have truly full employment without causing inflation.”

What was sufficient for a simple agrarian economy does not provide an adequate framework for freedom and democracy today.  We need an Economic Bill of Rights, and we need to end the privatization of the national currency. Only when the privilege of creating the national money supply is returned to the People, can we have a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Ellen Hodgson Brown

Source:  http://ellenbrown.com/2015/04/06/how-america-became-an-oligarchy/