Dear Victor & BCC List,


Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
© 2000 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2005 June 29

This is in reply to an e-mail I received pointing out the views of the Christian Common-Law Institute regarding an alleged conflict between JFK and the Federal Reserve. It also suggested that this could have been the reason he was assassinated. On their website, the CCLI stated:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the treasury."... Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money.

This is what I refer to on page 569 of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, as "The JFK Rumor." I cannot accept this interpretation of history because of the following facts:

     If you look at a copy of EO 11110 you will find that it does not order the issuance of Silver Certificates. It orders an amendment to EO 10289. If you then look up EO 10289, you will find that it says:

The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President.

Those functions did not include the power to issue Silver Certificates. The purpose of EO 11110 was to add that power to the list. The exact wording of the Order was:

Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): (1) "The authority to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."

Therefore, my statement in The Creature from Jekyll Island is correct. EO 11110 did not order the printing of Silver Certificates. It ordered the amendment of a previous executive order so that the United States Code would authorize or "empower" the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Silver Certificates if the occasion should arise. The occasion never arose. According to the Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money by Gene Hessler, and also the Blackbook Price Guide to United States Paper Money, 33rd edition, the last issuance of Silver Certificates was in 1957. That was five years prior to Kennedy's EO 11110.

The following additional explanation was contained in a 1996 report from the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress:

What E.O. 11110 did was to modify previous Executive Order 10289, delegating to the Secretary of the Treasury various powers of the President. To these delegated powers, E.O. 11110 added the power to alter the supply of Silver Certificates in circulation. Executive Order 11110, therefore, did not create any new authority for the Treasury to issue notes; it only affected who could give the order, the Secretary or the President.

The reason for the move was that the President had just signed legislation repealing the Silver Purchase Act. With this repeal, the Treasury Secretary could no longer control the issue of Silver Certificates on his own authority. However, the issuance of certificates could be controlled under the President's authority. Hence, for administrative convenience, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110.

Ironically, the purpose of the order and the legislation was to decrease the circulation of Silver Certificates, with Federal Reserve Notes taking their place. As economic activity grew and prices rose in the 1950s and early 1960s, the need for small-denomination currency grew at the same time that the price of silver increased. The Treasury required silver for the increasing number of Silver Certificates and coins needed for transactions. But the price of silver was rapidly approaching the point that the silver in the coins and in reserve for the certificates was worth more than the face value of the money.

To conserve on the silver needs of the Treasury, President Kennedy requested legislation needed to bring the issuance of Silver Certificates to an end and to authorize the Fed to issue small denomination notes (which it could not at that time). The Fed began issuing small denomination notes almost immediately after the legislation was passed. And in October 1964, the Treasury ceased issuing Silver Certificates altogether. If anything, E.O. 11110 enhanced Federal Reserve power and did not in any way reduce it." (See "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality," by G. Thomas Woodward, Specialist in Macroeconomics, Economics Division, Congressional Research Services, Library of Congress, CRS Report for Congress, No. 96-672 E, July 31, 1996.)

The CCLI makes the following claim in its report:

The Christian Common Law Institute has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

This is not supported by the facts. The power granted to the Secretary of Treasury to issue Silver Certificates was rescinded on September 9, 1987, by Executive Order 12608, signed by President Reagan. The official purpose of the Order was stated as "Elimination of unnecessary Executive orders and technical amendments to others." It did not affect EO 11110 directly but did affect the parent EO 10289 - along with 62 other executive orders. That is how paragraph (j) was amended to remove the power in question. This Order can be found in its entirety in the Federal Register 52 FR 34617.

The picture is blurred by the fact that the Treasury did issue United States Notes in the same year as EO 11110 (1963) but, as discussed further along, U.S. Notes are not the same as Silver Certificates. Furthermore, their issuance had nothing to do with EO 11110. It was mandated by an 1868 act of Congress, which required the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain the amount of U.S. Notes outstanding at a fixed level. This did not originate with JFK and, in fact, he probably had no deep understanding of it. It was a routine matter initiated by the Treasury merely to replace worn and damaged specimens of older Notes in order to comply with the 1868 law. Apparently some of these new Notes did get into circulation but were quickly snapped up by private collectors. They never became a significant part of the money supply and, in fact, were not intended to.

     The persistent rumor regarding the bankers' role in JFK's death was reinforced by several books circulated in conservative circles. They contained an ominous passage from Kennedy's speech at Columbia University, just ten days before his assassination. He is quoted as saying: "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." [Quoted by M.L. Beckman, Born Again Republic, Billings, Montana, Freedom Church, 1981, p. 23; also by Lindsay Williams, To Seduce A Nation, Kasilof, Arkansas: Worth Publications, 1984, p. 26.] However, when Columbia University was contacted to provide a transcript of the speech, it was learned that Kennedy never spoke there - neither ten days before his assassination nor at any other time! Ronald Whealan, head librarian at the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library in Boston, provides this additional information: "Ten days prior to the assassination he was at the White House meeting with, among others, the ambassador to the United States from Portugal." [Source: Hollee Haswell, Curator at the Low Memorial Library, Columbia University.]

It is possible that the President did make the remarks attributed to him on a different date before a different audience. Even so, it is a cryptic message that could have several meanings. That he intended to expose the Fed is the least likely of them all. Kennedy had been a life-long collectivist and internationalist. He had attended the Fabian London School of Economics; participated in the destruction of the American money supply; and engineered the transfer of American wealth to foreign nations. (See page 109 of The Creature from Jekyll Island.) There is little reason to believe that he had suddenly "seen the light" and was reversing his life-long beliefs and commitments.

     These facts alone should be enough to settle the matter, but there is yet one more point of confusion to be cleared up, and that involves the difference between Silver Certificates and United States Notes. In monetary terms, a Note means a promissory note. A Note is any financial instrument that states in clear and unambiguous terms who is to pay what to whom on what date. All four elements must be included. [See Ewart, James E., Money (Seattle, Principia Publishing, 1998), pp. 27-29.] Therefore, any paper currency that displays a statement such as "The United States Treasury will pay to the bearer on demand twenty dollars in silver coin" is a Note. A Silver Certificate is just one form of a Note. Other forms existed in the past and included Bank Notes, United States Notes, Gold Certificates, and even Federal-Reserve Notes in those by-gone days when they were backed by gold.

Earlier issues of U.S. Notes displayed printed statements to the effect that (1) the bearer could redeem them (2) at the Treasury (3) on demand (4) either for dollars or a specified weight of gold or silver. During those years, a dollar was defined by law as 371.25 grains of pure silver, which was the amount contained in a One-Dollar silver coin. The law also provided that the metal could be in the form of coins, dust, nuggets, plate, or bullion. Therefore, whether the phrase printed on the currency promised dollars, silver, or gold, it ultimately meant precious metal in one form or another - usually coin. Since there was nothing ambiguous about that, those U.S. Notes were true Notes in the legal sense because they contained all four elements of a promissory note.

This tradition began to change in the late 1960s and, since about 1971, U.S. Notes have become very ambiguous, indeed, about what can be redeemed for them. The former clearly written contracts have now been replaced by random, unconnected phrases such as The United States of America; Twenty Dollars: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. These words look official and impressive but, in terms of a contract to redeem the currency for something of intrinsic value, they have no meaning at all. Silver Certificates once were a promise to deliver silver. U.S. Notes now are a promise to deliver taxes and inflation.

Even in 1963 when EO 11110 was issued, there were important legal and technical differences in the regulations that governed the issuance of Silver Certificates and U.S. Notes. These words were not used interchangeably. Regulations pertaining to the issuance of Silver Certificates could not be applied to the issuance of U.S. Notes, and vice versa. When EO 11110 authorized the issuance of Silver Certificates, it said nothing about U.S. Notes. The subsequent issuance of U.S. Notes, therefore, had nothing to do with EO 11110. And that is the point of this analysis. Without that understanding, one cannot grasp the significance of the JFK executive orders.

I do not claim to have the final answers on these issues, but this is where our research has led so far. I am open to additional information or interpretation. I would especially welcome a response from the Christian Common Law Institute.

G. Edward Griffin
October 15, 2000


     When the previous material was posted to this web site, I assumed that would put the matter to rest – or at least would relieve me of having to repeatedly explain my position. How wrong I was. Those who had accepted the JFK rumor as fact were not pleased, and I began to receive angry letters suggesting that I was either an idiot or working for the bankers to cover their crimes. My analysis and the fact that key elements of the alleged evidence were non-existent made no difference. To them, a belief in the virtue of JFK and the evil of the banking fraternity were all that was necessary for proof. The myth had become an item of faith, not to be challenged by mere facts.

Recently, I received an exceptionally antagonistic email that made all the others seem like certificates of merit. It didn't introduce anything new to the debate but it was so heated and – shall we say colorful – that I thought it might be of general interest. The following excerpts are from an exchange of emails with Rich Loomis. I would not normally mention the name of someone who corresponds with me, but this is an exception because of the abusive nature of his remarks. It's not that I am overly sensitive to such things but, in his first emails, he accused me of hiding my true intentions and dared me to meet him in open debate where he could expose my duplicity and lack of scholarship – so I think it is only fair to accept his challenge and reply to him publicly by name.

I must warn you that what follows, even though edited to omit repetition, is still quite lengthy; so, unless you have an interest in this topic, you may want to find something else to do. However, for JFK afficionados, it will be worth it. For others, there may be entertainment value in the colorful barbs that Loomis throws at me. Regardless of what else we may think about him, he clearly is strong on passion.

There were several letters from Loomis. Both of them were primarily a recitation of the JFK rumor interspersed with barbs about how only an idiot could doubt that it was true. The best way to present this exchange is to reprint pertinent passages from his letters followed by my replies. Enjoy.

EG: Hello Rich Loomis. I have delayed responding for several reasons. First, things have been hectic here and my time is severely limited for polemics. Second, I wanted to cool down a bit to make sure I did not respond in anger. As you know, your communiqué was loaded with insulting statements and personal barbs. Nevertheless, I will now attempt to answer your points in the spirit of replying to someone who is honestly seeking information rather than an argument.

RL: Mr. Griffin – my tone was a bit harsh, to be sure . . but for me, it often takes a bit of outrage to move me off dead center and actually take the time to respond to items of concern, which surely barrage us all at an accelerated pace these days. Moreover, it especially irks me when someone of your mental stature and insight and public standing goes around doing “damage” in areas where you normally are so effective on the right side. And, in the particular instance regarding the Fed, I find it suggestive (call me paranoid, but I’ve seen a lot of this) that a “public” figure adopts the mantle of incisive critic EXCEPT in an area that still has potential for harm to the “powers that be.”

EG: I will overlook the innuendo that I am secretly working for our enemies.

RL: Murder has no statute of limitation, and the RICO act might well apply to the mega-trillionaire families behind the banking system. Motive, means, and more than one smoking gun pointing at their hydra heads. My anger began to smoulder first at encountering your following lines: “The question of which families own the controlling shares of the major banks that, in turn dominate the Fed hold great fascination among the Fed’s critics. In my own view, however, it is relatively inconsequential." Wow, if I were one of the murderous conspirators, I would just LOVE hearing this.

EG: Please note that you are using circular reasoning. You are convinced that the people behind the Fed are responsible for the murder of JFK. I am not. Yet you use your assumption to conclude that they must be happy at my position. If it could be demonstrated that your assumption is correct, I would agree with you; but there is no such evidence, as will be demonstrated shortly. You cannot use your assumption to prove your assumption.

RL: – and would in fact either powerfully threaten, or richly pay, or do whatever it required to bring exactly such an attitude into action whenever the subject was mentioned by ANYONE having an effective public voice. Have they gotten to you, Ed, or did you just take a few stupid pills when you wrote this piece?

EG: I resent the innuendo but will not rise to the bait.

RL: What an incredible example of specious, self-serving “logic” – to affirm that it is not in the public or private interest to specifically identify evil, and why? Because everybody’s evil anyhow, so why bother! Who cares who a particular murderer or embezzler is, or if the man next door has a long history of pedophilia and torture of children, after all, the next person is likely to be just as bad. And if the essential worth of my bank account and other financial holdings are virtually stolen out from under me or otherwise devalued next to nothing, who cares what the identity of the responsible parties might be, right? The next bank or savings and loan company are just as poorly run and venal, right? What a load of crap.

EG: Tut, tut. There you go again. I resent your implication that the foregoing represents my point of view. If you have read my material, you know that it does not. Your outpouring of righteous indignation is admirable, but please save it for someone who actually believes this stuff. It certainly is not I, and you should be embarrassed for using this straw-man tactic.

RL: It is ALWAYS vital to identify evil and evildoers, to the fullest extent possible and shouted from the highest rooftops. You, sir, are little more than an apologist for murder and looting on a scale never before seen in history, and which is now poised to bring the most horrid suffering on the planet that could be imagined – but hey, let’s not mention names, right???????????????????????????????

EG: You certainly are itching for a fight. But it is for those that might read your material that I write, so I will pass over these highly insulting comments as well.

RL: And by what leap of “logic” do you assume that everyone wants the Fed to be merely “confiscated” by politicians? Most thinking people already agree with you that fiat money is a major no-no and that this license to steal should be revoked/dismantled at once.

EG: I am impressed by the fact that you know the view of most thinking people and that they are already opposed to fiat money. I am more of the opinion that most thinking people have been so conditioned by their education and the popular wisdom of the media that they cannot imagine life without fiat money. Just because they do not understand the fraud and theft perpetrated by the Fed does not make them stupid or “unthinking.” It is just that they have never been exposed to the whole story about money. Our job is to educate them and convert them to a correct understanding.

RL: BUT . . how does one dismantle something without dealing with the vital details . . SUCH AS . . who TRULY runs the damn thing to begin with? Knowing this, one can then trace who answers to them, who is likely to be corrupt and who might not. Of course, if the whole world is corrupt (except for you?) then naturally, one would have to agree that names and vital details count for nothing, so let’s not bother. (Especially when any attempt to effectively research and publish the matter can very easily end in death or imprisonment, or otherwise cause suffering to innocent family members, or whatever.) A pretty strong motive for proclaiming the whole task to be “inconsequential” in the first place, wouldn’t you say?

EG: There you go again. Rich, can’t you just make a point without jabbing a verbal finger into someone’s face? I have never said that who runs the Fed is unimportant, and you know it. I have said that who OWNS the Fed is inconsequential. Who RUNS it is very important. If you will read my book, you will learn that the Fed is owned by the member banks, but this ownership means very little. It’s the control that counts, and that control is in the hands of the largest banks in New York. You are obsessed with the notion that there must be some foreigners pulling the strings from behind the scenes. I am obsessed that there are some non-foreigners pulling the strings from behind the scenes. I don’t care who is pulling the strings or where they live. What I care about is what those strings do. Taking them out of the hands of some men and putting them into the hands of others will accomplish nothing except create the illusion that something is being done. That is why I am concerned over the recent trend among critics of the Fed who advocate turning the whole thing (strings and all) over to the Treasury. The theory is that if we just get rid of those big, bad bankers and turn their power over to those nice, trustworthy politicians, everything will be OK. That is a formula for disaster.

RL: And regarding Kennedy’s EO 11110 – I am almost flabbergasted to see you almost PURPOSELY miss the whole point, and virtually parrot word for word the Fed/Treasury Dep’t public stance on the issuance of Kennedy’s “U.S. Notes" – that this was merely another example of periodic “adjustment” and ho hum, nothing of consequence. This time, either you took the entire bottle of stupid pills, or, you are indeed just another puppet talking head sell out of the first order.

EG: Rich, instead of calling names and insulting those with whom you disagree, how about trying a rebuttal with facts? I would be more inclined to correspond with you if you did, but comments like this are very bothersome.

RL: How about answering me just one simple question: To whom are we indebted for the “national debt”? (Which at one time was virtually non-existent.)

EG: You will find the answer to that question on page 511 of my book.

[The following comment is from a later reply, which proves that Loomis has never bothered to read my book.]

RL: I doubt that you answer it AT ALL . . and of course you could have simply SAID what’s on page 511, but I guess that would reveal the sham at once, instead of making me spend money on you first.

RL: Are Federal Reserve Notes any different AT ALL in a legal/debt sense from U.S. Notes? And oh please, don’t bring out the smoke and mirrors again about silver/gold redemption issues, just address the matter of whether or not a legal difference exists, and the nature thereof. (I can answer this but would like to see you in print on the matter, specifically and at proper length.)

EG: I don’t know how you think the answer to this question bears on the JFK assassination; but for the sake of discussion I will venture to say that there is little difference between a Federal Reserve Note and a U.S. Note insofar as, ultimately, they are both obligations against the Treasury. There are other important differences, as you know, but not in terms of who backs them up. But the question is curious, because the Kennedy Executive Order EO11110 did not call for the issuance of U.S. Notes. It authorized the issuance of Silver Certificates. So what is your point?

RL: Do you recall what happened to Lincoln when he tried to cut out the world bankers in London – who were happily financing both sides of the Civil War – by issuing greenbacks and other securities “in house” with no interest accrued to London? And, I suppose you cannot fathom the connection of Kennedy doing the same thing – trying to cut the balls off the Fed and the London controllers – and being killed for it?

EG: There is a big difference between believing that these people would not hesitate to do such things and believing that they actually did. Because a man is capable of committing a crime is not reason to believe that he did commit a crime. Until there is solid evidence, I will continue to say that there is no solid evidence, and what happened to Lincoln doesn’t change that one bit.

RL: It of course was not JFK behind the matter, but his father Joseph, who as ambassador to England saw first hand the power and control (and perhaps was privy to their long-term plans) of the “Blue Bloods” and evidently became determined to thwart their goals. Michael Piper mentions in his book a quote attributed to Joe Sr. wherein he specifically affirmed that he intended to some day scuttle the Fed and that whole power structure.

EG: A quote in someone’s book “attributed to” Joseph Kennedy about a “someday” intention is a far cry from solid evidence. You’ve got to do better than that.

RL: And what was blocking his son from carrying out his father’s wishes once he assumed the presidency?

EG: What was blocking JFK was the fact that he was a Fabian socialist who was in full accord with internationalist plans to collectivize America and merge her into world government. The Fed is a major force in the implementation of that plan. I am not aware of anything in JFK’s political career that supports the theory that he was opposed to fiat money. He may have been at odds with certain competing political camps within that larger movement, but he was never on the outside.

RL: He soon discovered that Truman (one of a long line of banker/illuminati flunky’s) effectively removed the power of the Executive Office to institute Fed/monetary reform – he transferred authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, and in fact each such secretary was part of the “package deal” that each President HAD to accept from the election backers ($$$$$) and until Kennedy, this was never a problem. Unlike the yes-men before him, he frontally challenged the money-powers of the world by first restoring power over financial matters to the President, and then – a cannon-shot across the bow – actually forcing the Treasury Dep’t to ISSUE the dangerous U.S. Notes.

EG: Rich, you had better go back to the library and re-read these executive orders. You have it all wrong here. For starters, Kennedy had nothing to do with the issuance of U.S. Notes and very little to do with the issuance of Silver Certificates. I fear that you have been overly influenced by authors who are trying to cling to the Camelot image of JFK and not being very careful about their facts. For the exact wording of all the pertinent executive orders, again I refer you to my analysis previously cited.

RL: Yes, at this point it was merely a relatively toothless gesture and “message” compared to actually demolishing the Fed structure entirely – but don’t think for an instant that they didn’t UNDERSTAND this message and quickly move to act on it. BANG. All the bullshit about Viet Nam, the Bay of Pigs, and so on are mere side issues and window dressing that people like you parrot endlessly and mislead the people.

EG: Please, Rich. Don’t do that. Can you point to anything I ever wrote about Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs? If you cannot, a retraction would be appreciated. If you want to criticize something I have written, then I am open to knowing what it is that you don’t like, but lumping me together with others with the phrase “people like you” severely weakens your case.

RL: Joe Kennedy and clan were locked in deadly combat with the world bankers – and guess who won. Robert tried bravely to resume the endeavor – BANG. Joseph Jr. dared to jump into the political arena against “orders” – BANG. A little accidental plane crash.

EG: This is all very plausible, but there’s one little problem with it. The evidence is missing. I am not prepared to commit to a conclusion based merely on the basis of its plausibility. Nor should you.

RL: You didn’t research XO 10289 enough – although it’s been almost two decades now I believe it alludes to another House bill, I forget the number, but when I looked it up at a law library it dealt with the US Bankruptcy issues of 1933 or so, and it specifically empowered any sitting US President to overturn the Fed at his/her discretion, and to begin issuing US Notes or some such non-Fed currencies, to be backed with silver, etc.

EG: As stated previously, I think it would be good for you to go back to the library and refresh your memory. If you can come up with any hard facts that are contrary to my analysis, I will be happy to make a retraction. Until that time, I see no reason to change it.

RL: Regardless, in spite of Fed lies, the Treasury Dep’t has NOT regularly (or ever!) issued US Notes as typified in the 1963 series. Try a simple check: go to any numismatic dealer, ask to see for yourself any such beast – it aint’s there! And if ANY group of tens of thousands of “detectives” are any better at ferreting out unusual items, rare items, slightly flawed items, missing items, or what have you, there wouldn’t be a more diligent search than what has already gone on for decades (or centuries) by such people, and by stamp collectors, etc. Literally nothing gets by them.

EG: In my analysis (previously mentioned), I made the following statement: “Apparently some of these new Notes did get into circulation but were quickly snapped up by private collectors. They never became a significant part of the money supply and, in fact, were not intended to.” It took me less than two minutes on the Internet to find an excellent specimen of a 1963 $5 U.S. Note. You can view it at$5UnitedStatesLegalTenderNoteSnA51298086A.htm. You are right. Nothing gets by them, but it apparently got by you.

RL: After doing that, try as I did at one point – call all over various departments of the Treasury itself. Ask where one might locate and read the enabling document [from WHOMEVER] that resulted in the actual printing of those US Notes . . and see where it gets you! Then try the Fed, as I did, and see what happens THERE . . if you dare. If the issuance of those notes was so “routine” and innocuous, then why are relevant documents as impossible to retrieve from federal vaults as the surveillance tapes from buildings near the Murrah building and from the 9/11 demolition?

EG: I don’t know why you have so much difficulty locating the pertinent documents. Perhaps it is your belligerent attitude, which may offend people and motivate them not to cooperate. In any event, I had no difficulty obtaining a copy of “United States Notes,” an internal publication of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing provided by Cecilia Wertheimer, Curator. This is an excellent reference showing the substance of actions taken with regard to U.S. Notes and the authorizing sources, which in every case is a federal statute. The information you seek can be found on pages 34 through 39. I Don’t know if Wertheimer is still the Curator, but I urge you to call the Bureau, ask for the Curator’s office, and request your own copy of this document.

RL: Ok, it’s getting late, this is just for starters . . you wanted it, you got it. Now, it’s ME that can’t wait to hear your spin on all this.

EG: This may be just starters for you, but not for me. I have more important things to do with my time. If you have factual data that contradicts what I have said, then I will welcome receiving it and will thank you for sending it. However, if you just want to insult me and offer opinions based on conjectures and plausibilities, I will not have time to continue the correspondence.


The Creature from Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

by G. Edward Griffin

Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait! You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story — which it really is. But it's all true. This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change. You'll never trust a politician again — or a banker.

Available from The Reality Zone at