From Reuters via Yahoo News, Bernanke is on a PR campaign to prop up the Federal Reserve’s waning credibility as faithful stewards of its paper franchise monopoly.

Bernanke sought to demystify the role of the Federal Reserve, and especially debunk ideas that the Fed has almost unfettered power as an unelected fourth branch of government.

“I’m answerable to the American people,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke should do stand-up comedy.  He isn’t answerable at all to the American people and he said so to Bernie Sanders:

Now, Sanders expresses “outrage” (posturing) incredulously wondering if only “large, greedy corporations” get the money at the expense of other businesses.  Sanders of course, appears to not willingly or not wittingly admit corporations are creatures of the State as well.

As usual, the Fed gets a free pass again with this one:

Markets would likely assess that inflation would rise if Congress or the administration started to meddle with interest rate decisions, he added.

And the Fed’s track record on inflation since inception is…a saved 1914 dollar has the purchasing power of about 4 cents.  Whew Ben.  The purpose of the Fed is to loot and pillage everyone.  It’s not prejudiced.  It steals from all savings.

Next, the article cites Bernanke as “bristling with emotion” when “asked about a measure before Congress to open the Fed’s monetary policy decision-making to scrutiny by a congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office.”.

This of course is, HR 1207 and similarly S. 604, which Reuters fails to mention.  Bernanke whines:

“I don’t think the American people want Congress running monetary policy. That’s exactly what (the bill) would do,” he said.”

First, most American – and other nations –  people don’t understand monetary policy as they have been prevented from learning what it is via State run education and a bought off State/Media propaganda cartel.

Next, even if they DID understand monetary policy but are brainwashed into thinking they can control government, do you think they would agree money should be controlled by an unelected institution as opposed to an elected one?  In otherwords, if Bernanke was answerable to the American people, and the American people’s voices are represented via Congress, Bernanke should laud the measure, no?   The reporter of the article should have pointed that obvious flip-flop out, but as usual, the Fed gets a free pass.

If the reporter was doing their job, they should have mentioned that the Constitution expressly forbid outsourcing of monetary control to a third party. That’s exactly what happened when Congress created the Fed in 1913, oops I mean when Congress created the Second Bank of the United States  in 1816-1836, oops I mean Congress created the First Bank of the Unites States in 1791-1811.    This of course leads to the question, “Hey!  If the Constitution can’t prevent the banksters from lobbying Congress to give them a license on monetary control, why do we have a government anyway?  It’s supposed to protect us from each other, but it keeps feeding us to the wolves!”  You cannot restrain a predatory tiger (the State) in a paper cage (a Constitution).   It gnaws at the bars, fed by lobbyists, banksters, special interests, campaign contributions, and other such bribes.

HR 1207 was created by Ron Paul.  He is a shining gem in a pile of shit and I was quite interested in him during the 2008 primaries.  Ron Paul exceeded the limit on the carefully controlled debate spectrum.  The Media cartel, acting in the best interests of the Status Quo/Establishment parasites, either ridiculed but more often than not, ignored him.  Paul argued for the abolition of the Fed, citing it was unconstitutional.  I think he even introduced a bill to that effect, but no-one (obviously) would co-sponsor it.  1207 calls for “auditing” the Fed.  As usual, the existence of government institutions is not to be questioned, but the useless debate over the mechanics of “control” can be allowed. Ron Paul’s argument, “The Fed should be abolished because it is unconstitutional!” is weak.  The stronger argument is, “The Fed should be abolished because it is immoral!”.

The correct question to ask is, “Why do we need government either via the Fed or Congress to control our money at all?”.  Ask that question and it immediately leads to, “Who needs a government anyway?”.  Do we need to be governed?  Yes.  Does that mean we need to have a monopoly on violence to govern?  No.  Any monopoly on violence is automatically corrupt.  It will be sought out those who wish to manipulate it to their advantage to the disadvantage of others.  Always.

The article ends with the typical “man on the street” interview:

Retirees Elbert and Gloria Willingham of Overland Park, Kansas, who were among the studio audience, gave Bernanke two thumbs up.

“I’m very impressed with Bernanke. I strongly hope that Obama sees fit to reappoint him — it would be bad for the economy if he didn’t,” Elbert Willingham said.

“He’s down to earth and believable. He’s got the ideas, but also the practical understanding,” his wife added. “He cares about the small businessman.

Of course, the media would not cite anyone who gave Bernanke “two-thumbs down”, preferring to rush to numbskulls with heads filled with pablum.  These people STILL know nothing other than the cut of Bernanke’s jib.  He’s “believable”?  That’s these two dipshits “analysis”?  Bernanke’s a “good liar” and we think he should be “reappointed?”.    Epic fail.

And they vote: