Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: May 4, 2026
Update	: May 4, 2026
Parts	: 03

Synopsis:



Let me begin this series by emphasizing that I have long believed that accuracy is very important when it comes to sharing the Christian Gospel and teaching the Word of God. We cannot teach some things off the top of our heads, just because they sound good, or because they may be popular at some particular moment, or because they acquire us our own faithful following, or for any other reason. If we are not in the ministry to teach and preach the pure, unadulterated Word of God, because we simply love God's sheep and want to feed them with the truth of God's Word, then we are in it for the wrong reason.

This is particularly true when financial gain happens to be our primary motivation. Sadly, as many of my readers will no doubt already know, to our own shame, many modern Christian churches and denominations have been totally infiltrated by such false, greedy preachers who simply love to milk their naive and gullible flocks for every single penny that they can get. This is in fact a topic which I discuss at length in articles such as "Money-Making Bible Hucksters and Mammon" and "Abundant Life Doctrine: Scripturally Exposed!", both of which you will find listed at the end of this same series.

It is my view that this same responsibility of speaking the truth of God's Word -- and only the truth -- equally applies when it comes to sharing online posts which are of a rather sensationalistic and alarming nature. If you are a denizen of the social networks, then you will already know that the online world -- meaning the Internet in general -- is a huge confusing and deceptive rumor mill which is constantly being inundated with all kinds of ridiculous and quite often very untrue nonsense which has absolutely no basis in reality. In my view, it is even worse when Christians do the very same thing. Sad to say, there are many of them, as I point out in a number of my articles such as "Facebook False Prophets and Misguided Teachers".

As I mention in articles such as "AI, Deepfakes and Humanoid Robots", the recent advent, popularity and growing influence of Artificial Intelligence -- meaning AI-generated content -- has only made the online situation that much worse. And I really do mean A LOT worse! This extremely deceptive mental and spiritual junk is now posted ad nauseam everywhere, and the only way in which one can really avoid it -- at least on the social networks -- is by not logging in to one's online accounts at all. But if we are truly honest with ourselves, not very many of us are actually willing to do that, are we? Thus, we endure all of the invented crap, or at least try to ignore it as much as possible, as we each go about doing the Lord's Business.

This leads me to our main topic of discussion. A few days ago I learned about one of the latest rumors that has begun circulating on some of the social networks, particularly on Facebook. So, upon learning about it, I looked more deeply into this latest rumor, which for me personally, reminds me of what I stated in the article "Obamacare and the Mark of the Beast: Fact or Fiction?", which I wrote back in October of 2012. It hasn't been updated since then, and is probably in need of a few refinements by this time. At any rate, this new rumor concerns an alleged presidential Executive Order -- or EO -- which will supposedly require all American bank accounts holders to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship -- such as a passport or a birth certificate -- in order to keep their bank account open. Upon looking into the matter, what I actually discovered is the following:

1. As of April 29, 2026, President Trump has NOT YET signed such an Executive Order. It is something that is still under consideration and it has NOT been signed or adopted yet. In fact, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent referred to it as being "in process".

2. A Time magazine article with the headline "Trump Order to Require Banks to Collect Citizenship Info 'In Process,' Bessent Says. Here's What to Know", and dated April 22nd of this year states the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"It's not clear if the potential order would go so far as to require banks to shut existing customers' accounts if they couldn't produce such documents, or how such a mandate would be enforced. Experts have said the executive action would likely face legal challenges."

----- End Quote -----

So the idea that people who refuse to comply will have their bank accounts closed -- and thus not be able to buy or sell anything as per the Mark of the Beast of Revelation 13 -- is merely an unsubstantiated Internet rumor which is foolishly being promoted by misguided Christians at this current time. As many of my Christian readers already know, in Revelation we read the following verses in chapter thirteen, as well as in five other chapters of this amazing Book:

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:‭ And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.‭ Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number ‭is‭ Six hundred threescore ‭and‭ six.‭"


"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive ‭his‭ mark in his forehead, or in his hand,‭ The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:‭ And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.‭"


"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, ‭and‭ over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.‭"


"And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and ‭upon‭ them which worshipped his image.‭"


"‭‭And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.‭ And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.‭ And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which ‭sword‭ proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.‭"


"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and ‭I saw‭ the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received ‭his‭ mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.‭"


To reiterate, the presidential EO has NOT even been signed yet. Or if it has, that fact hasn't been confirmed and made public yet. Will President Trump sign it at some point in the near future? I honestly don't know. I am not a Prophet, and I really do not like to step too deeply into personal speculation in any of my BBB articles. I strive to provide actual facts and Scriptural truth for my readers. However, at this time, I will offer my personal thoughts regarding the matter.

Personally, I think that this Executive Order, IF President Trump should ever actually sign it, will place too heavy of a burden on the banks, as well as on all U.S. bank account holders. Furthermore, I think that such an EO will result in a substantial amount of backlash and confusion. As even the Time magazine article notes, such an Executive Order would most certainly face legal challenges. Furthermore, imagine the nightmare if banks try to enforce it. They are going to have a rebellion on their hands. While I have no proof of this at this current time, I suspect that what may possibly and eventually happen, IF the EO is actually signed, is that it will only be applied to individuals who open brand NEW bank accounts. I do not believe that it will be applied to already-established bank accounts. In other words, perhaps some kind of middle-of-the-road compromise could be made.

My friends, let's really stop and think about this. Let's suppose that you are a bank manager. This EO comes down the pipes, and you are pressured to implement it. Please notice that I said pressured and NOT forced. I used this specific word for a very good reason. If you want to understand why this was my choice of words, consider the following rather pertinent information which resulted from two simple Google searches:

----- Begin Quote -----

Explanation #1:

Presidential executive orders are not legally enforceable in the same way as laws passed by Congress. While both carry legal weight, they originate from different sources: laws are enacted by Congress, and executive orders are directives issued by the President.

Legally, executive orders can have the force of law, but they are not considered laws in the traditional sense.

Courts can review executive orders for constitutionality, and Congress can override them with new laws.

The distinction lies in the authority and permanence of each; laws are binding on the entire country, while executive orders are primarily directed at federal agencies.

In summary, while both serve important functions in governance, they are fundamentally different instruments with distinct legal implications.

Explanation #2:

Presidential executive orders are generally considered legally enforceable within the executive branch. However, they cannot directly bind private citizens or state governments. Their force runs through federal agencies, which are bound by the orders in how they enforce existing laws. While executive orders carry the force of federal law, they do not have the same public visibility or force as statutes or regulations. They are subject to judicial review and can be invalidated if they exceed the President's authority or violate the Constitution.

----- End Quote -----

Please notice carefully that what those two explanations so very clearly state is that while laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are binding on the ENTIRE country, in contrast, presidential Executive Orders are only legally enforceable within the executive branch, and only on federal agencies.In other words, my friends, private U.S. citizens and state governments are NOT bound by them, no matter what a president or anyone else may try to claim. Clearly then, there are legal limitations with regard to Executive Orders.

Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that U.S. banks -- such as JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America, for example -- are neither federal agencies, nor a part of the executive branch of government. They are actually PRIVATE, for-profit corporations or commercial institutions. So if I understand this correctly -- and I believe that I do -- that means that U.S. banks are NOT required to adhere to an Executive Order if they don't want to. But would there be repercussions if they choose not to? That is the question.

At the same time, as I point out in the controversial series "Welcome to Greater Israel, USA!", there is also the Federal Reserve System -- a.k.a. the central banking system -- which is a hybrid, INDEPENDENT, privately-held entity within the government. Many people know it simply as the Fed. It has a government agency known as the Board of Governors which is directly responsible for overseeing twelve private regional Federal Reserve Banks, who in turn watch over the numerous privately-owned member banks all across our nation. While the Board of Governors itself is a federal government agency, the twelve Federal Reserve Banks are actually set up similar to private corporations, while still being subject to certain public-interest restrictions.

Now I will be upfront and honest and inform you that when it comes to the banking system and anything related to financial and economic issues, I am by no means an expert on the topic. I understand the basics of the Federal Reserve System, as I just described to you, but that is really about as far as it goes. So regarding the restrictions I mentioned, I queried my AI friend Claude about it, and the following is what he had to say regarding this subject, based on information which he culled from Wikipedia and a few other websites. If you want to pass over this information due to its technicality, or due to your lack of interest in it, you are free to do so:

----- Begin Quote -----

The Private Corporation Resemblance

The Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors.

The Key Restrictions

Despite their corporate-like structure, several important restrictions distinguish them from true private corporations:

1. Stock cannot be sold or traded. Federal Reserve Bank stock cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock. Stock "may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan," and all member banks receive a 6% annual dividend.

2. Membership stock is mandatory, not voluntary. Ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks.

3. No profit motive. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit. The Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

4. Stockholders lack normal ownership powers. The stockholders do not have the powers and privileges that belong to stockholders of private corporations. Stock ownership does not give a bank proportional voting power to choose the Reserve Bank's directors; instead, each member bank receives three ranked votes for six of the Reserve Bank's nine directors. Connecticut General AssemblyWikipedia

5. Charter is set by law, not by the banks. The charter of each Federal Reserve Bank is established by law and cannot be altered by the member banks.

6. Board composition is restricted. Class B and C directors cannot be bankers, and the Class C directors cannot own any bank stock.

7. Government oversight. The regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the Board of Governors — a federal agency whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

8. Any surplus upon dissolution goes to the government. If a Reserve Bank were ever dissolved or liquidated, members would be eligible to redeem their stock up to its purchase value, while any remaining surplus would belong to the federal government.

The Bottom Line

The legislation that Congress adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that exists today. So while the Fed banks look like corporations on the surface, they are more accurately described as public instrumentalities that use a corporate structure for operational efficiency — not for private profit.

----- End Quote -----

The Federal Reserve System -- or central banking system -- is by far the most powerful banking institution in America, and basically serves as the financial backbone of our whole country. Furthermore, let me also point out here that their decisions affect every single person in the United States. For example, its decisions affect the cost of living, the minimum wage, and so many other things of which we are not even aware.

What some of my readers may find very interesting is who was the inspiration behind this financial giant. As it turns out, in a somewhat indirect way, the US Federal Reserve System can be viewed as the brainchild of the Rothschild's of London. In other words, they are the descendants of Nathan Rothschild -- who was one of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild -- who fathered a son named Lionel, who in turn fathered his own son -- or Nathan's grandson -- who was named Alfred. Alfred was the director of the Bank of England for twenty years. So German-Jewish banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his sons established their banking dynasty, and eventually spread it throughout Europe, including in England. But consider what happened next across the pond in America.

During the early 1900s, with the financial backing of Alfred Rothschild, a fellow German-Jewish banker by the name of Paul Warburg arrived in the United States with the explicit goal of lobbying for the formation of a central banking system in the U.S.A. which was modeled after the same system which the Rothschilds oversaw in Europe. Warburg would eventually marry into the family of Solomon Loeb, who was the German-Jewish co-founder of the powerful investment firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was eventually purchased by Lehman Brothers -- yet another German-Jewish enterprise -- which eventually became the fourth largest investment bank in America before it declared bankruptcy in 2008. Lehman Brothers' core North American investment banking and trading operations were then acquired by Barclays, while its foreign operations in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and the Middle East were taken over by Nomura Holdings.

At any rate, with the assistance of other major U.S. bankers, -- such as J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. -- and with the influential help of powerful senator Nelson Aldrich -- who was the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and whose daughter actually married into the Rockefeller family -- the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, primarily with the support of the Democrats.

Senator Aldrich had actually traveled to Great Britain and Europe in order to learn more about their central banking systems. I think it is probably safe to assume that Aldrich became convinced that the European banking system was a far superior financial system, due to some level of influence from the Rothschilds. Thus, Aldrich returned to the United States convinced that a Rothschild-styled banking system was what the country needed. As a direct result of the influence of Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg, the Federal Reserve Act was signed, and the Federal Reserve System became a reality. For his part, Paul Warburg eventually resigned from his post as director of Wells Fargo & Company, and took his position as a governor on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve System consists of twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, and also numerous privately-owned member banks. As I also told you, oversight comes from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate for staggered fourteen-year terms.

According to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, "ITS MONETARY POLICY DECISIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE EXECUTIVE OR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT." This startling fact was confirmed in a 2007 interview that Jim Lehrer held with Alan Greenspan. As you see from the previous list, Greenspan was the thirteenth Chair of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. During that interview which was aired on PBS -- the Public Broadcasting System -- Jim Lehrer asked Greenspan what he thought should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. president. Following is how Greenspan chose to respond to Mr. Lehrer:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that THERE IS NO OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT WHICH CAN OVERRULE ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE. So long as that is in place, and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter."

----- End Quote -----

In a word, my friends, I think it is fair to say that the US Federal Reserve Bank more or less amounts to a privately-run financial dictatorship. They make all the rules, and hardly anyone ever bothers to even challenge them. In other words, while the President nominates the seven members -- including the Chair and the Vice Chair from the current sitting members -- and while the U.S. Senate must confirm them as well, once the confirmation process is completed, ALL POWER lies in the hands of those seven individuals, and they are just about untouchable! Exactly how untouchable are they? Just keep on reading, and you will soon find out! As of May 3, 2026, the seven members of the Board of Governors are as follows:

Jerome Powell - Chairman
Philip Jefferson - Vice Chair
Michelle Bowman - Vice Chair for Supervision
Michael Barr
Lisa Cook
Stephen Miran
Christopher Waller

My dear friends, there's a reason why the head of the Federal Reserve Bank is referred to as the "money czar". His word is basically financial law. He holds more power, and also more directly affects our personal lives, than the actual American president himself! Furthermore, the members of the Board of Governors also serve a much longer term than a U.S. President who can only legally serve for two terms, totaling only eight years. In contrast, the Board of Governors serve staggered 14-year terms, while the Chair, Vice Chair, as well as the Vice Chair for Supervision are appointed by the President for 4-year terms which are renewable.

While the Federal Reserve Board does report to Congress, that is as far as their oversight goes. Lastly, the Fed does NOT receive taxpayer funding, so it cannot be controlled in that fashion. Think about that! In fact, as you may possibly know, insofar as length of term is concerned, the members of the Fed's Board of Governors are only outdone by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who each hold the longest possible, non-elected tenure in the U.S. government. I am, of course, referring to the fact that justices of the SCOTUS -- Supreme Court of the United States -- all serve lifetime appointments based on "good behavior". Furthermore, the SCOTUS is the ONLY major federal body without mandatory retirement, or even term limits.

In light of these amazing facts, one must wonder who really holds the most power in the U.S. government. Is it actually the President -- who I have long viewed as a puppet figure at best -- or is it the Fed's Board of Governors and the SCOTUS justices who can influence American life for a longer period of time? What do you think? The answer seems rather obvious to me.

Now, for those of my readers who may possibly think that I am just trying to be sensationalistic, or that perhaps I am over-exaggerating the facts, then allow me to blow your mind a bit more by sharing some additional information with you. It may interest you to know that a sitting President CANNOT just freely fire the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, according to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, a Chair can ONLY be removed "for cause". Now this term is generally interpreted by legal scholars as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. In other words, disagreements over monetary policy do NOT fall under "for cause", and a U.S. President CANNOT fire a sitting Chair for that reason. Wow!

But that is not all, my friends. These money czars -- and the other six members of the Board of Governors -- are quite protected from interference by the President, the Congress, or anyone else. In other words, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 protects Federal Reserve Board Governors -- including the Chair himself, from political pressure by restricting removal to cases of proven misconduct. To wit, to date, no U.S. president has ever fired a Federal Reserve Board Chair. Furthermore, the definition of "cause" has never been fully tested in court.

To be clear, a sitting President can remove the Chair as the head of the Board of Governors. However, a president CANNOT remove a Chair from the Board of Governors itself without a strict "cause". As such, the Chair typically continues as a member of the Board of Governors until he has completed his 14-year term, even if he has been removed from his role as Chair. While presidents have threatened to fire Chairs over interest rate policy, again, legal experts generally argue that such actions by a sitting President would be challenged in court.

For example, as you probably know if you've paid attention to the American news, quite a feud has erupted between President Donald Trump and the current sitting Chair, Jerome Powell. In fact, as of April of 2026, Trump has repeatedly threatened to fire Powell, stating that he would remove him, if Powell does not leave when his term as Chair concludes this month -- that is to say, in May of 2026 -- or if he remains on the Board of Governors afterward. Trump's justification is that he is not satisfied with Powell's interest rate policies.

Interestingly enough, there was also a Department of Justice probe into whether or not Powell had made false or misleading statements to Congress with regard to the scope and expenses of the extensive renovations that were being made to the Fed's Washington, DC headquarters. In the end, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro shut down the criminal investigation, having determined that there was no evidence of any crime being committed by Mr. Powell. Consequently, the entire matter was referred back to the Federal Reserve's inspector general to continue auditing the renovation expenses. And so, Mr. Trump's legal attempt to take down Powell utterly failed.

But here's the thing, folks. While Powell's term as Chair does expire on May 15, 2026, his term as a member of the Board of Governors runs through January 2028. For his part, Powell has indicated that he intends to serve his full term. As for Mr. Trump, based on the stipulations of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from my non-legal perspective, it seems to me that Trump is powerless to oust Powell, despite all of Trump's bravado.

Please go to part two for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.