Our goal is to enlighten the world about the evil done by the Elite in the past,
and about their plans for greater evil in the future.
RIE is proud to announce the release of our new products:
Who's Who of the Elite - DVD
Who's Who of the Elite V9
What the Elite Have Done to America and
How To Fix It
The Elite Control Everything of Significance
What Will It Be, An Elite Global Union,
or An Islamic Global Caliphate
We also just released three videos about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
LBJ's Texas Mafia Killed JFK, RFK & MLK, which is a 75-minute interview with Billie Sol Estes;
The Clint Murchison Meeting, which is a 90-minute interview with Madeleine Duncan Brown; and
LBJ's Texas Mafia Killed JFK, which is a 75-minute PowerPoint presentation of the murder of JFK.
Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.
To learn more about these two products click on the Books button on the left.
RIE is proud to announce the creation of two new pain relieving products:
1 Gulp Itz Gon®
What Will It Be, An Elite Global Union,
or An Islamic Global Caliphate?
We are in for much trouble in this world. There are two opposing groups trying to take charge. The first group, the Elite international bankers, have been trying to conquer the entire world, both economically and politically, ever since about 1865, or so. Their approach is to dominate the money supply of the world, so that they can buy their way into controlling everything of significance. Their method has become almost successful without them having to fire a single shot.
A few in the past have tried this, but they used deadly force such as Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Emperor Augustus, and most recently Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Today there is an opposing faction that would try to do the same, but they don’t mind using force. In fact they think that they will go to their Heaven immediately if they kill an infidel, and will go much faster if they kill many infidels as they martyr themselves in doing so.
The first group believes absolutely in usury - the practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate. For the second group, usury is forbidden by their holy laws.
The first group has an unusually low fertility rate, about 1.36 to 1.82, while the second group has a fertility rate ranging from 4.26 to 7.68. A ratio of about 1 to 3.75. Over a period of time, who will win money or population? Time gives the prize to the second group.
In both cases the average citizen of the world loses. The first group would make them slaves and the second group would kill them if they don’t join their effort.
So, the average citizens of the world cannot sleep while all this takes place, for the quality of life of their children and grandchildren are at stake. Do not discount these two opposing groups, for you very likely will become their victim a slave or dead. What will it be?
The 2008 U.S. economic crisis became apparent by most people during the summer of 2008, but it started several years earlier. There is a lot of similarity between this crisis and the Savings & Loan crisis during the early 1980s. Over 1,000 executives of the S & L industry were convicted of federal crimes and sent to prison. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Elite bribed Congress and the White House so that they would agree to deregulate the financial industry. The Elite promised that competition between financial institutions would cause a natural self-regulation within the industry, and that the Federal Reserve System would keep a tight reign on all activities. Right!
Control frauds are financial superpreditors that cause vastly larger losses than blue-collar thieves. They cause catastrophic business failures. Control fraud can occur in waves that imperil the general economy. The (1980s) savings and loan (S & L) debacle was one such wave.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) wanted the (Federal Home Loan) Bank Board to reduce its examiners and supervisors. President Reagan appointed Vice President (G. H. W.) Bush to head his financial deregulation task force. Bush recommended that financial regulators rely more on computer analysis of industry financial statements and cut both the frequency of examinations and the number of examiners. Martin Lowy (1991, 36) says that (Richard) Pratt (Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board) fought with the Administration for new examiners and was denied them.
Source: Pages 1 & 33, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, by William K. Black
Federal Reserve System
When we ask most people what branch of the Federal government that the Federal Reserve System (FED) is in, most will say, “It must be in the Treasury Department”. Amazing! The FED is not a Federal agency, there is no reserve, and it’s owned 100% by the member banks of the FED. Most of the money that the FED creates is done so by simple computer entry in the FED’s general ledger. Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency, with the words "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on each bill. When the FED creates paper money it simply contacts the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing and notifies this Bureau how many of each value bills that they want printed. Each bill printed costs the FED about four cents to print, regardless of whether it’s a $1.00 bill or a $100.00 bill.
After months of hearings, debates, votes and amendments, the proposed legislation, with 30 sections, was enacted as the Federal Reserve Act (also called the Glass-Owen Bill). The House, on December 22, 1913, agreed to the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not voting. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. (See v. 51 Cong. Record, pages 1464, 1487-88). Source: Wikipedia
So, 76 members of the House of Representatives, and 27 members of the Senate did not vote for the Federal Reserve Act, because they had left early for the Christmas holidays. It’s just a coincidence that the votes were taken just before Christmas. Right!
In addition, because this should have been an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, at least 3/4th, or 75% of the states must have ratified the amendment before it could become a legal law of the U.S. In 1913, there were 48 states, so 36 states must have ratified this Amendment. Also, the FED has never been audited since it was founded, and it pays no income tax on the profits that it makes from issuing money, at interest.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: Congress has the power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, … This Article has never been repealed nor amended, so it is still in effect. It does not state that Congress can transfer this power to any other organization, particularly a private corporation. Everyone is afraid to test the Federal Reserve Act before the U.S. Supreme Court, because if the Constitution were to be literally interpreted, the FED would be unlawful.
Congressman Ron Paul argues that:
"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy."
Many others in the past have expressed similar opinions as Congressman Ron Paul, such as:
The few who can understand the system (the international banking system) will be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people are mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interest. Source: Rothschild Brothers of London
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astonishing piece of slight of hand ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And, they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of the bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money, and control credit. Source: Sir John Stamp (former governor of the Bank of England)
“Give me the power to coin and issue money and I care not who makes the laws!”
Source: Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the House of Rothschild
The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushes its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks. . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. . . the issuing power should be taken from the banks, and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. (emphasis added) Source: Thomas Jefferson
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down, and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Source: Samuel Adams
History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent plans possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance. (emphasis added) Source: James Madison
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency, and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government, and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals, the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity. Source: Abraham Lincoln
If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. Source: Andrew Jackson
The Elite have just about destroyed the economies for almost every nation in the world through their greed and ignorance. They have created sophisticated financial instruments, such as credit default swaps, and other forms of derivatives, that most people do not understand, and which are now a major cause of the world’s financial problems. They are allowed to use sophisticated and confusing terms that allow them to remain outside of the law in their dealings, such as off-balance-sheet, naked short sales, pro forma financial statements, credit default swaps, derivatives, etc. The average citizen using these tactics would be charged with violations of the fraud laws.
Wikipedia defines derivatives as - financial contracts, or financial instruments, whose values are derived from the value of something else (known as the underlying). The underlying on which a derivative is based can be an asset (e.g., commodities, equities (stocks), residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds), an index (e.g., interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index (CPI, or other items (e.g., weather conditions, or other derivatives). Credit derivatives are based on loans, bonds or other forms of credit.
The main types of derivatives are: forwards (which if traded on an exchange are known as futures); options; and swaps.
Derivatives can be used to mitigate the risk of economic loss arising from changes in the value of the underlying. This activity is known as hedging. Alternatively, derivatives can be used by investors to increase the profit arising if the value of the underlying moves in the direction they expect. This activity is known as speculation.
The Invisible One Quadrillion Dollar Equation
Asymmetric Leverage and Systemic Risk
According to various distinguished sources including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland -- the central bankers' bank -- the amount of outstanding derivatives worldwide as of December 2007 crossed USD 1.144 Quadrillion, ie, USD 1,144 Trillion. The main categories of the USD 1.144 Quadrillion derivatives market were the following:
1. Listed credit derivatives stood at USD 548 trillion;
2. The Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives stood in notional or face value at USD 596
trillion and included:
a. Interest Rate Derivatives at about USD 393+ trillion;
b. Credit Default Swaps at about USD 58+ trillion;
c. Foreign Exchange Derivatives at about USD 56+ trillion;
d. Commodity Derivatives at about USD 9 trillion;
e. Equity Linked Derivatives at about USD 8.5 trillion; and
f. Unallocated Derivatives at about USD 71+ trillion.
The worldwide Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to the 2008 CIA World Factbook, was $70.65 quadrillion. This same source lists the U.S. GDP at $14.58 quadrillion. So, on June 2008, the U.S. derivatives market was estimated to be 7.8% of the total U.S. GDP.
As of Sept. 39, 2007
Trillion $ Trillion $
Total Assets Derivatives Leverage
JP Morgan Chase $1.2 $91.7 76.4
Citibank 1.23 34.0 27.6
Bank of America 1.29 32.1 24.9
Wachovia .56 5.2 9.3
HSBC .18 4.4 24.4
Wells Fargo .45 .99 2.2
Top 6 Banks - total $4.91 tril. $168.39 tril. Average …… 34.3
Source: The 2007 annual reports of these six banks.
So, these six bank’s exposure to derivatives are leveraged an average rate of 34.3 times their total assets. Should one, or more, or all of these banks fail, who covers these exposures? Under any reasonable definition, these six banks are totally bankrupt.
Washingtonblog.com, on May 18, 2012, reported that the global derivative market was $1.4 quadrillion, or 20 times larger than the Global Economy.
Wikipedia defines Credit Default Swaps (CDS) as - a credit derivative contract between two counterparties. The buyer makes periodic payments (premium leg) to the seller, and in return receives a payoff (protection or default leg) if an underlying financial instrument defaults. CDS contracts have been incorrectly compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if a specified event occurs. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance; the buyer of a CDS does not need to own the underlying security; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default event.
Matthias Chang, author of Future Fastforward, Brainwashed for War Programmed to Kill, and The Shadow Money Lenders, in one of his newsletters to his friends, estimates that the face amount of CDS were as follows:
Year Trillion $
2001 - $.9189
2002 - 2.2
2003 - 3.8
2004 - 8.4
2005 - 17.4
2006 - 34.4
2007 - 62.2
June 2008 - 54.6
As of 7/1/2012, the CME Group reports that the total volume of Interest Rate Swaps was $532.7 billion, the Open Interest amount was $311.8 billion, and that the total volume of Credit Default Swaps cleared was $128.5 billion and the Open Interest amount was $38.8 billion. Source: www.cmegroup.com/trading/cds/files/cds-buyside.pdf
When a major financial institution, such as Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and others, go belly up, what happens to their Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives?
Wikipedia defines Ponzi Scheme as - A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses, because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.
Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff is the most current example of a major Ponzi scheme, in which he scammed his clients and friends for over $50 billion. Federal prosecutors estimated client losses, which included fabricated gains, of almost $65 billion. U.S. District Judge Denny Chin scheduled a June 16, 2009, sentencing for Madoff, but also ordered him immediately jailed pending the sentencing.
Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps are completely unregulated by any state or federal agency!
If the financial institution’s average exposure to derivatives and credit default swaps are on the order of magnitude of over 35 times their total assets, then Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps are a massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by these financial companies. Therefore, it should not be very difficult to charged the executives of these companies with fraud, put them on trial, and if found guilty, fine them very heavily and send them to prison for the rest of their lives. They have caused very severe hardships for most of the citizens of the entire world. Shame on them.
Latest Major Bankruptcy News (as of 9 July 2008 at 4:00 am)
2007 06 13 IndyMac Sued Over Investor Claims It Hid Loan Losses
2008 06 30 IndyMac to Trim Operations, Not Shut Down, Perry Says
2008 07 01 IndyMac Chief Financial Officer A. Scott Keys Resigns
2008 07 07 IndyMac Cuts Half its Staff as Mortgage Losses Mount
2008 07 08 IndyMac Falls After Regulators Say It Isn’t `Well Capitalized’
2008 07 10 Roskilde Bank Receives Liquidity From Danish Central Bank
2008 07 11 Danske Bank ikke interesseret i Roskilde Bank
2008 07 11 Danish Central Bank Bails Out Roskilde Bank
2008 07 11 Roskilde Drops in Denmark After Central Bank Bailout
2008 07 11 IndyMac Bancorp Is Seized By Federal Regulators
2008 07 11 IndyMac Seized by U.S. Regulators Amid Cash Crunch
2008 07 25 My Experience at Indy Mac: Fraud, Corruption, Criminality
2008 07 26 Sinking IndyMac sought funding lifelines
2008 08 15 McCain’s Son Sat on Troubled Bank’s Board
2008 08 20 FDIC Releases Details on IndyMac Loan Mods; Questions Remain
2008 08 20 California mulls probing senator over IndyMac crash
2008 09 05 Regulators Shutter Silver State Bank
2008 09 19 Ameribank of West Virginia closed by regulators
2008 09 25 WaMu Seized by U.S., Assets Sold to JPMorgan in Record Failure
2008 09 25 WaMu’s 42-Story Seattle Headquarters Acquired in JPMorgan Deal
Additional bankruptcies since 9 July 2008:
2008 09 14 Merrill Lynch announced that it had agreed to be purchased by Bank of America
2008 09 14 Lehman Brothers announced that it would file for liquidation
That is why, in late September 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson, Jr. and VP Dick Cheney went screaming to Congress for a bailout of $700 billion for the banks. They refused to give the details, but said that if Congress did not give the banks this $700 billion the world’s economy would go into total meltdown. Congress quickly added $150 billion in pork to the bill and passed it on for the President to sign. No conditions, no restrictions, no transparency, no accountability, and no financial plan just let them have it. And, the American voters did not seemed to be concerned about all this, because they re-elected almost all of Congress back into office in November 2008. Is this a great country, or what?
Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972. He then worked for the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from 1972 to 1973, during the events of the Watergate scandal for which Ehrlichman was convicted, and sentenced to prison.
He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office under James P. Gorter. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998; eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was US $37 million in 2005, and US $16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over US $700 million.
While the world economic leaders scramble for solutions, the average citizens must deal with a deep recession, and possibly a very deep depression for the next 18 to 48 months.
How to Fix It
1. Inasmuch as credit default swaps and derivatives are unregulated, uncontrolled, and are a Ponzi scheme, the Congress must pass laws taxing all derivatives and credit default swaps at the rate of .0001 per year, for the first year, then doubling this rate every third year, or completely outlawing such instruments.
2. All financial institution executives who participated in the creation and marketing of derivatives and credit default swaps should be investigated, charged with the crime of fraud, and if found guilty, fined to the limits of the law and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
3. Similar to the process that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the creation of new drugs, the U.S. Congress should approve the creation of any new financial instruments, such as derivatives and the like. Congress must perform very careful oversight of this new process.
Pro forma Financial Statements
Answers.com defines pro forma as - A Latin term meaning "for the sake of form". In the investing world, it describes a method of calculating financial results in order to emphasize either current or projected figures. Investors should heed caution when reading a company's pro-forma financial statements, as the figures may not comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In some cases, the pro-forma figures may differ greatly from those derived from GAAP.
About.comEconomicsPro defines pro forma as pro forma describes a presentation of data, typically financial statements, where the data reflect the world on an 'as if' basis. That is, as if the state of the world were different from that which is in fact the case.
For example, a pro forma balance sheet might show the balance sheet as if a debt issue under consideration had already been issued. A pro forma income statement might report the transactions of a group on the basis that a subsidiary acquired partway through the reporting period had been a part of the group for the whole period. This latter approach is often adopted in order to ensure comparability between financial statements of the year of acquisition with those of subsequent years.
InvestWords.com defines pro forma as - Description of financial statements that have one or more assumptions or hypothetical conditions built into the data. Often used with balance sheets and income statements.
How to Fix It
In other words, pro forma financial statements are an approximation. Congress should pass laws outlawing pro forma reporting and require all financial reporting to be as accurate as humanly possible, complying with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), in order to avoid confusion and outright fraud.
Wikipedia defines Off-balance-sheet (OBS) as it usually means an asset or debt or financing activity not on the company's balance sheet. It could involve a lease or a separate subsidiary or a contingent liability such as a letter of credit. It also involves loan commitments, futures, forwards and other derivatives except such derivatives pertaining to equity securities, ESOP, or phantom stock, which usually must be held as reserves in the Long Term Debt section of a Balance Sheet, when-issued securities and loans sold.
How to Fix It
The use of off-balance-sheet practices are very deceptive. It allows companies to hide their actual financial condition. Congress must pass laws requiring that all balance sheets should be required to list all assets and liabilities on a timely basis, using GAAP.
InvestorWords.com defines short selling as - Borrowing a security (or commodity futures contract) from a broker and selling it, with the understanding that it must later be bought back (hopefully at a lower price) and returned to the broker. Short selling (or "selling short") is a technique used by investors who try to profit from the falling price of a stock. For example, consider an investor who wants to sell short 100 shares of a company, believing it is overpriced and will fall. The investor's broker will borrow the shares from someone who owns them with the promise that the investor will return them later. The investor immediately sells the borrowed shares at the current market price. If the price of the shares drops, he/she "covers the short position" by buying back the shares, and his/her broker returns them to the lender. The profit is the difference between the price at which the stock was sold and the cost to buy it back, minus commissions and expenses for borrowing the stock. But if the price of the shares increase, the potential losses are unlimited. The company's shares may go up and up, but at some point the investor has to replace the 100 shares he/she sold. In that case, the losses can mount without limit until the short position is covered. For this reason, short selling is a very risky technique. For a while, SEC rules only allowed investors to sell short only on an uptick or a zero-plus tick, to prevent "pool operators" from driving down a stock price through heavy short-selling, then buying the shares for a large profit. This rule was eliminated in July 2007.
Naked Short Selling
Wikipedia defines Naked Short Selling as - Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is a type of financial Speculation. It is the practice of selling a stock short, without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares can be borrowed as is done in a conventional short sale. When the seller does not obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". The transaction generally remains open until the shares are acquired by the seller or the seller's broker, allowing the trade to be settled. Naked short selling can be used to manipulate the price of securities by driving their price down, and its use in this way is illegal.
Speculators are notoriously guilty of using short selling to drive down the values of stocks, bonds, commodities and currencies, so that they can realize huge profits from such actions by buying back these items (which they never owned in the first place) once these investments reach rock bottom. Often a group of investors will secretly ban together and drive the value of stocks, bonds, commodities and currencies to rock bottom for their profit, similar to a pack of wolves going after a young deer.
Currency speculation, or hedging, has destroyed the economies of many entire nations for profit. On average, over $2 trillion in currency exchanges occur each business day.
Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who wrote on September 26 “Because of the extraordinary greed of American financiers and businessmen, they invent all kinds of ways to make huge sums of money. We cannot forget how in 1997-98 American hedge funds destroyed the economies of poor countries by manipulating their national currencies”. The Prime Minister is recognized as an authority on the role of hedge funds in financial crises, given his experience managing the Asian currency crisis as it engulfed his nation in September eleven years ago. He is particularly critical of the role of George Soros…
The 3/3/2009, edition of The Financial Times newspaper reported:
The South Korean won on Tuesday rebounded from the weakest level in 11 years, helped by suspected intervention by the foreign exchange authorities. The won has lost about 18 per cent of its value against the dollar this year to become the worst-performing major currency in Asia amid growing concerns about the country’s debt-financing ability. The Korean currency fell as much as 1.5 per cent on Tuesday morning as the stock market fell below the 1,000 mark. But it rebounded 1.2 per cent to close at 1,552.40 per dollar, ending a three-day losing streak. Traders say Won 1,600 appears to be the dollar’s short-term peak. Traders said the government repeated its intervention after the finance minister warned against currency speculation. “[Authorities] are resolutely watching the foreign exchange market,” finance minister, Yoon Jeung-hyun, told reporters. “[The dollar/won] will not continue to go in one direction forever.”
InvestorWords.com defines hedge funds as - A fund, usually used by wealthy individuals and institutions, which are allowed to use aggressive strategies that are unavailable to mutual funds, including selling short, leverage, program trading, swaps, arbitrage, and derivatives. Hedge funds are exempt from many of the rules and regulations governing other mutual funds, which allows them to accomplish aggressive investing goals. They are restricted by law to no more than 100 investors per fund, and as a result most hedge funds set extremely high minimum investment amounts, ranging anywhere from $250,000 to over $1 million. As with traditional mutual funds, investors in hedge funds pay a management fee; however, hedge funds also collect a percentage of the profits (usually 20%).
A major player in the hedge fund market is George Soros. Market Folly reported that:
Soros Fund Management is run by George Soros. Soros is famous for his stellar returns with partner Jim Rogers when they ran their Quantum fund. Now, he has carried his investment style over to his own firm, Soros Fund Management. Whether it be equities, bonds, currencies, debt, or commodities, Soros is more of a global macro player, seeking investments in whatever market they can gain an edge. So, keep in mind that these equity positions only represent a portion of the fund's overall holdings. They are not required to disclose holdings outside of equities, notes, and stock options.
George Soros has been accused by several nations, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico, of having crashed their economies by speculating in their currencies by short selling practices. Several hedge funds could form a cabal and destroy the economies of just about any nation around the world, solely for profits.
Nobody except the Elite are allowed to sell something that they do not own. In the real world, anyone doing so would be committing fraud. Therefore, all short selling of any kind, should be outlawed completely by Congress, and without reservations. No person, or organization should be allowed to sell anything that they do not legally own a clear title to.
The Federal Reserve System (FED) was given the right to create money and credit within the United States by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The stated justification for doing so was that the Fed would stabilize the financial markets.
The FED’s stated Monetary Policy is - The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
Most people have apparently forgotten the Savings & Loan debacle of the 1980s, when over 1,000 crooks were convicted of fraud as a result of the deregulation of the S & L Industry. That was about 25 years ago and the stripes have not changed on the skunks. By padding the Congressmen’s pockets by lobbyist, our financial industry was again deregulated, leading to the 2007 financial crisis, which just about took down the economies of every nation in the world. The FED should have stopped this in the very beginning, but it ignored its responsibility. During the 1st quarter of 2009, lobbyist expenses lobbying Congress and all federal agencies were $27,571,656, with $285,851 contributed to the House Financial Services Committee members. Source: Wall Street Journal, 6/3/2009.
Get ready for hyperinflation. The world’s central banks have pumped many trillions of dollars into the world economy, trying to cure the financial crisis. The June 10, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal reports:
The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions. When (May 12, 2009) Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know.
Federal Reserve System
The U.S. recession (possibly depression) of 2007 2009, (and counting) very clearly proves that the FED has grossly failed in its oversight functions, yet again. The FED is beyond criminal law, so the only way to resolve this problem is to take very drastic actions against the FED.
Ellen Hodgson Brown, an attorney from Newhall, California, has devised an excellent solution to this problem Nationalize the FED.
After the FED has been nationalized, and in order to prevent the Elite from gaining access to our money system again in the future, the U. S. Constitution must be amended as follows:
Congress has sole authority to coin money, print paper money, create electronic money, and credit and to determine the value thereof. Congress does not have the right to transfer this ability to create money and credit on to any other public or private entity, such as an individual, group, company, or corporation, whatsoever.
Nationalize the Federal Reserve System
Ellen Hodgson Brown
The biggest “trade secret” of the banking business is that banks create the money they lend out of thin air. “The process by which banks create money is so simple,” wrote economist John Kenneth Galbraith, “that the mind is repelled.” Banks simply write “credit” into an account in exchange for the borrower’s promise to repay. In the case of the federal government, the bank that “monetizes” its promise to repay is the privately-owned Federal Reserve; and today the Fed is taking that monetizing power to such dangerous lengths that the currency could be hyperinflated into oblivion.
Implications and Possibilities
When you understand this sleight of hand, the way out of the government’s debt trap appears equally simple: Congress could just nationalize the Federal Reserve and print Federal Reserve Notes itself. This government-issued money could then be either spent or lent into the economy to get the wheels of production rolling again.
But isn’t the Federal Reserve already a federal agency? That commonly held misconception was dispelled when the Fed refused to comply with the Bloomberg demand under the FOIA. Most of the documents, said the Fed, are held by the New York Federal Reserve; and the New York Fed is not subject to the FOIA because it is not a federal agency.
It is not a federal agency but it should be, because we the people are picking up the tab. The Fed and the banks are creating $8 trillion out of thin air, nearly doubling the money supply; and that means the value of our dollars is being diluted by nearly 50%. If it is our money, we should get the interest, have the right to full accountability, and have control over where the money goes. Instead of pouring money into a massive black hole on the derivatives books of bankrupt banks, Congress could and should be using the national credit card to bolster manufacturing, housing and infrastructure development, either by making low-interest credit readily available to qualified borrowers or by a direct infusion of government-issued dollars into the economy.
The objection to the government printing dollars and simply spending them on public projects has always been that it would be inflationary, but that alternative would actually be less inflationary than letting the privately-owned Federal Reserve print dollars and swap them for U.S. debt, as is being done now. This is because Treasury debt, once created, is never paid off. The U.S. federal debt hasn’t been paid off since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, U.S. government securities wind up circulating in the economy along with the dollars that were printed to buy them. These securities represent a claim against U.S. goods and services just as dollars do. Indeed, that is why the government’s securities are so highly valued: they are just as good as dollars. They can be cashed in at any time for their dollar equivalent or deposited and borrowed against for an equivalent sum in loans, and they can be swapped for the riskier toxic collateral that is tying up the banks’ capital, preventing the banks from making new loans. Federal securities are particularly valuable to banks, because they can become the “reserves” for generating many times their face value in new loans. If the government were to print dollars directly, the bonds would be taken out of the picture. There would be debt-free, permanent money in circulation, money not subject to perpetual servicing with interest by the taxpayers.
Once the FED has been nationalized it should be referred to as the New FED.
The New FED should loan money, at a small interest rate, such as 1-2%, to states, counties and municipalities for the construction and maintenance of public infrastructures. It could also loan money to these entities so that they can retire their bonds that were issued at higher rates of interest. The indirect impact on U.S. citizens would then be to have their local taxes lowered.
The New FED should loan money, at interest, to national and community banks and credit unions, on the condition that these financial institutions, by law, must not charge interest rates of more than 4% above the rate that they pay as they borrow from the New FED. This would automatically reduce the cost of money to the public, because any bank that wanted to compete in the lending business would have to meet or beat the rates of the banks that borrow from the New Fed, in order to stay in business.
After Nationalizing the FED, Congress should simply cancel all U.S. debt owned by the New FED. All debt owned by anyone else, or any other nation should simply be monetized replace all outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills with cash (new Greenbacks).
Ellen Hodson Brown addresses this subject on pages 302-303 of her book, Web of Debt:
For the Federal Reserve to “monetize” the government’s debt with newly-issued dollars is actually nothing new. When no one else buys U.S. securities, the Fed routinely steps in and buys them with money created for the occasion. What is new, and what has analysts alarmed, is that the whole process is now occurring behind a heavy curtain of secrecy. Richard Daughty, an entertaining commentator who writes in The Daily Reckoning as the Mogambu Guru, commented in April 2006:
“There was... a flurry of excitement last week when there was
a rumor that the Federal Reserve had printed up, suddenly, $2
trillion in cash. My initial reaction was, of course, "Hahahaha!"
and my reasoning is thus: why would they go through the hassle?
They can make electronic money with the wave of a finger, so why
go through the messy rigamarole of dealing with ink and paper
and all the problems of transporting it and counting it and storing
it and blah blah blah?
But... this whole "two trillion in cash" scenario has some,
um, merit, especially if you are thinking that foreigners dumping
American securities. . . would instantly be reflected in instantaneous
losses in bonds and meteoric rises in interest rates and the entire
global economic machine would melt down. Bummer.
So maybe this could explain the "two trill in cash" plan: With this amount of cash, see, the American government can pretty much buy all the government securities that any foreigners want to sell, but
the inflationary effects of creating so much money won't be felt in
prices for awhile! Hahaha! They think this is clever!"
It might be clever, if it really were the American government buying back its own securities; but it isn't. It is the private Federal Reserve and private banks. If dollars are to be printed wholesale and federal securities
are to be redeemed with them, why not let Congress do the job itself and
avoid a massive unnecessary debt to financial middlemen? Arguably,
as we'll see later, if the government were to buy back its own bonds
and take them out of circulation, it could not only escape a massive
federal debt but could do this without producing inflation. Government
securities are already traded around the world just as if they were money.
They would just be turned into cash, leaving the overall money supply
unchanged. When the Federal Reserve buys up government bonds with
newly-issued money, on the other hand, the bonds aren't taken out of
circulation. Instead, they become the basis for generating many times
their value in new loans; and that result is highly inflationary.
Web of Debt, Page 47-49, states:
The Bankers' Paper Money Comes in
Through the Back Door
While the Founding Fathers were pledging their faith in gold and
silver as the only "sound" money, those metals were quickly proving
inadequate to fund the new country's expanding economy. The national
war debt had reached $42 million, with no silver or gold coins available
to pay it off. The debt might have been avoided if the government had
funded the war with Continental scrip that was stamped "legal tender,"
making it "money" in itself; but the revolutionary government and the
States had issued much of their paper money as promissory notes pay-
able after the war. The notes represented debt, and the debt had now
come due. The bearers expected to get their gold, and the gold was not
to be had. There was also an insufficient supply of money for conducting
trade. Tightening the money supply by limiting it to coins had quickly
precipitated another depression. In 1786, a farmers' rebellion broke out
in Massachusetts, led by Daniel Shays. Farmers brandishing pitchforks
complained of going heavily into debt when paper money was plentiful. When it was no longer available and debts had to be repaid in the
much scarcer "hard" coin of the British bankers, some farmers lost their
farms. The rebellion was defused, but visions of anarchy solidified the
sense of an urgent need for both a strong central government and an
expandable money supply.
The solution of Treasury Secretary Hamilton was to "monetize" the
national debt (emphasis added); by turning it into a source of money for the country. He
proposed that a national bank be authorized to print up banknotes and
swap them for the government's bonds. The government would pay
regular interest on the debt, using import duties and money from the
sale of public land. Opponents said that acknowledging the government's debt at face value would unfairly reward the speculators who had
bought up the country's I.O.U.s for a pittance from the soldiers, farmers
and small businessmen who had actually earned them; but Hamilton
argued that the speculators had earned this windfall for their "faith in
the country." He thought the government needed to enlist the support
of the speculators, or they would do to the new country's money what
they had done to the Continental.
Vernon Parrington, a historian, writing in the 1920s, said:
“In developing his policies as Secretary of the Treasury, [Hamilton]
applied his favorite principle, that government and property must
join in a close working alliance. It was notorious that during the
Revolution men of wealth had forced down the continental currency for
speculative purposes; was it not as certain that they would support
an issue in which they were interested? The private resources of
wealthy citizens would thus become an asset of government, for the
bank would link "the interest of the State in an intimate connection
with those of the rich individuals belonging to it."
Hamilton thought that the way to keep wealthy speculators from
destroying the new national bank was to give them a financial stake in it.
His proposal would do this and dispose of the government's crippling
debts at the same time, by allowing creditors to trade their government
bonds or I.O.U.s for stock in the new bank.
But Hamilton's plan had other strategic advantages, and it won the
day. Besides neatly disposing of a crippling federal debt and winning
over the "men of wealth," it secured the loyalty of the individual States by
making their debts too exchangeable for stock in the new Bank. The move
was controversial; but by stabilizing the States' shaky finances, Hamilton
got the States on board, thwarting the plans of the pro-British faction
that hoped to split them up and establish a Northern Confederacy.
[To monetize means to convert government debt from securities evidencing
debt (bills, bonds and notes) into currency that can be used to purchase goods
Matthew Rognlie offers the following:
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
"Monetizing" the debt: a clarification in terms
The buzz in some circles is that we'll have to "monetize" the federal debt, printing money to satisfy our obligations. I want to put aside for a moment the question of whether this will actually happen and clarify some vocabulary, because monetization is not the right term for the majority of the reduction in our debt burden that would result from an inflationary monetary policy.
When debt is monetized, it's converted into currency. The Federal Reserve creates $100 billion in new monetary base, uses it to buy Treasuries, and thus reduces the amount of government debt held by the public. There's another way, however, that printing money can ease the debt burden, and it's almost certainly more significant.
Aside from a small percentage (~10%) issued in inflation-protected securities called TIPS, most of our national debt is held in nominal bonds, which pay a fixed dollar amount that doesn't depend on inflation. If the price level unexpectedly increases by 100%, therefore, our real debt will be cut in halfadjusting for inflation, our bonds will be worth half what they once were, and be half as difficult to pay back.
Why will this have a larger effect than printing money? Subtracting excess reserveswhich are kept out of the broader money supply by the Fed's current policy of paying interest on reserves, and will be unwound as the economy begins to recoverthe monetary base in the US is a little less than $1 trillion. Accordingly, if we doubled the monetary base, we would be able to monetize a $1 trillion of debt. This is no small amount, but it only makes a dent in the federal debt held by the public, currently a little over $7 trillion. If left out in the economy, however, the new monetary base would cause prices to double, cutting the debt held in nominal bonds in half. The arithmetic here is simple: $3.5 billion is a lot more than $1 trillion, and the main effect is from inflating away the value of our debt, not from monetization specifically.
Many times, commentators who understand these issues perfectly well nevertheless use "monetization" as a catch-all for the total effect of inflationary monetary policy on our debt. I don't think this is wise. Confusion about monetary economics is already overwhelming, and when it's not difficult to use more precise vocabulary, we should make the extra effort.
So, if monetizing the federal debt will not change the M3 money supply, because both cash and treasury notes are included in the calculation of M3, then there should be no inflationary effect. Therefore, the massive burden of the federal debt should immediately be monetized.
Banking in the United States
The Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC) was chartered to protect the depositors in U.S. banks, up to $100,000 per person, per bank. After the September 2008-financial crisis the limit on each account was raised to $250,000, until January 2010, in order to try to stop runs on the banks. Sub-prime lending, credit default swaps, derivatives and other very poor banking practices caused almost all U.S. banks values to crash. On March 6, 2009, Citigroup’s stock had dropped to $0.97 per share, from a high of $55.20 per share on May 30, 2007. JP Morgan Chase’s stock fell from $48.45 on July 1, 2007, to $15.90 on March 9, 2009. Bank of America fell from $20.70 in 2006, to $2.53 per share in March 2009.
Due to these meteoric declines of the banks, Congress passed the first Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), with an infusion of the first $350 billion, out of a total of $700 billion. The largest banks receiving Asset Guarantees TARP funds were: Citigroup - $50.306 bil.; Bank of America - $45.118 bil.; JP Morgan Chase - $25 bil.; and Wells Fargo - $25 bil. Congress failed to include in the TARP provisions for accountability and transparency, so who knows where this money went.
The massive exposure to credit default swaps and other derivatives have literally made the very largest banks insolvent, but they refuse to go into bankruptcy. In Japan they are referred to as Zombie banks. The only way to clean up the credit default swaps and derivatives dark cloud is to punish these banks and other financial institutions by Nationalizing all National banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions that have Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and derivative exposures in excess of their net worth. Then these CDS and derivatives must be wound down and forever made illegal.
Banking with the U.S. Government
The superior safety and security that investors feel when they stash their savings with the U.S. government could be achieved by nationalizing bankrupt banks. This is not a radical idea. Rather than being bailed out with taxpayer money, insolvent banks are actually supposed to be put into receivership under the FDIC (a government agency). It then has the option of taking the bank’s stock (effectively nationalizing it) in return for getting the bank back on its feet. This was done, for example, with Continental Illinois, the nation’s fourth largest bank, when it went bankrupt in the 1990s.
In a number of capitalist countries, including Switzerland and India, publicly-owned banks operate right alongside privately-owned banks. Studies in India comparing public and private banks have found that Indian public banks not only are more secure, but they give superior customer service. In European countries, working for the government is considered more prestigious than working for the private sector, and government employees have better training. Interestingly, the first banks owned publicly in democratic communities were established in the American colonies. It may be time to return to our roots and restore the U.S. banking system to public ownership again.
The top 19 U.S. banks were required to submit to a stress test of their ability to serve as viable banks. The results were posted May 7, 2009. The results of the stress test as reported in the May 9, 2009, edition of Financial Times, were:
Banks with adequate capital were: JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Metlife, Bank of NY Melon, Capital One, American Express, US Bancorp, State Street and BB&T.
Banks needing extra capital: Citigroup $5.5 bil., Bank of America $33.9 bil., Wells Fargo $13.7 bil., GMAC $11.5 bil., Morgan Stanley $1.8 bil., PNC Financial Services $0.6 bil., Regions Financial $2.5 bil., Sun Trust $2.2 bil., Fifth Third Bancorp $1.1 bil., and Keycorp $1.8 bil.
How to Fix It
Since 97% of the Money Supply is created as commercial loans, rather than continuing to bail out these troubled banks, Congress should nationalize all National banks, and restructure all other banks and credit unions so that they can no longer create money and credit, by raising their reserve limits from 10% to 100%. Banks wanting to not be nationalized should be given the opportunity to convert to local, or state banks. After doing so, these banks and credit unions should only be allowed to loan funds that are 100% backed by deposits, or bank capital, or capital borrowed from the New FED. Any bank with total derivatives and credit default swaps in excess of their net worth should be included in this nationalization.
Ellen Hodgson Brown, a brilliant attorney/economist, has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that nationalizing the Federal Reserve System could completely eliminate the need for a federal income tax:
… What impact would those alterations have on the federal
income tax burden? To explore the possibilities, we'll use U.S. data for
FY 2005 (the fiscal year ending September 2005), the last year for which
M3 (which is the M2 money supply + large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets) was reported:
• Total individual income taxes in FY 2005 came to $927 billion.
• Taxpayers paid $352 billion in interest that year on the federal debt.
If the debt had been paid off, this interest could have been cut from
the national budget, reducing the tax burden by that sum.'
• Total assets in the form of bank credit for all U.S. commercial
banks in FY 2005 were reported at $7.4 trillion. Assuming an
average collective interest rate on bank loans of about 5 percent,
approximately 370 billion dollars were thus paid in interest that year.
If roughly half this sum had gone to a newly-formed national banking
system -- for loans made at the federal funds rate to private lending
institutions, interest on credit card debt, loans to small businesses,
and so forth-- the government could have earned around $185 billion
in interest in FY 2005.
Adding these two adjustments together, the public tax bill might
have been reduced by around ($352+185) $537 billion in FY 2005. Deducting this
sum from $927 billion leaves $390 billion. This is the approximate sum
the government would have had to generate in new Greenbacks to
eliminate federal income taxes altogether in FY 2005.
What would adding $390 billion do to the money supply and
consumer prices? In 2005, M3 was $9.7 trillion. Adding $390 billion
would have expanded M3 by only 4 percent -- Milton Friedman's
modest target rate, and far less than the money supply actually grew in
2006. That was the year the Fed quit reporting M3, but the figures have
been calculated privately by other sources. Economist John Williams
has a website called "Shadow Government Statistics," which exposes
and analyzes the flaws in current U.S. government data and reporting.
He states that in July 2006, the annual growth in M3 was over 9 percent.
We’ve seen that this growth must have come from fiat money created as loans by the Federal Reserve and the banks. Thus if new debt-free Greenbacks had been issued by the Treasury instead, inflation of the money supply could actually have been reduced from 9 percent to a modest 4 percent without cutting government programs or adding to a burgeoning federal debt.
Horn of Plenty: Avoiding Inflation
by Increasing Supply and Demand Together
New Greenbacks in the sum of $390 billion dollars would have
been enough to eliminate income taxes, but according to Keynes, the
government could have issued quite a bit more than that without
dangerously inflating prices. He said that if the funds were used to put
the unemployed to work making new goods and services, new currency
could safely be added up to the point of full employment without
creating price inflation. The gross domestic product (GDP) would just
increase by the value of the newly-made goods and services, keeping
supply and demand in balance.
How much is the U.S. workforce under-employed today? In the
first half of 2006, the official unemployment rate was 4.6 percent; but
critics said the figure was low, because it included only people applying
for unemployment benefits. It did not include those who were no
longer eligible for benefits, those who had given up, or those whose
skills and education were under-utilized - people working part-time
who wanted to work full-time, engineers working as taxi drivers,
computer programmers working as store clerks, and so forth. According
to Williams' "Shadow Government Statistics" website, the real U.S.
unemployment figure in early 2006 was a full 12 percent.
The reported GDP in 2005 was $12.5 trillion. If Williams'
unemployment figure is correct, $12.5 trillion represented only 88 percent
of the country's productive capacity in 2005. Extrapolating upwards,
100 percent productive capacity would have generated a GDP of $14.2
trillion, or $1.7 trillion more than was actually produced in 2005. That
means another $1.7 trillion in new Greenbacks could have been spent into the
economy for productive purposes in 2005 without creating significant price
What could you do with $1.7 trillion ($1,700 billion)? According
to a United Nations report, in 1995 a mere $80 billion added to existing
resources would have been enough to cut world poverty and hunger in
half, achieve universal primary education and gender equality, reduce
under-five mortality by two-thirds and maternal mortality by three-
quarters, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and halve the proportion
of people without access to safe water world-wide. …
Source: Pages 422-423, Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
So, adding to Ellen Brown’s suggestions, the IRS Approved Annual Budget for 2008, was $11.4 billion, and the interest on the national debt in 2008, was $451+ billion. So, if the Income Tax were to be eliminated then the Internal Revenue Service should be eliminated as well. Then, if the IRS was abolished, we nationalized the FED and we monetized our debt, this would result in a reduction in our federal budget of $11.2 + 451, or $462.2 billion, leaving an annual budget surplus of $462.2 390 = $72.2 billion. This means that instead of needing to add $390 billion in Greenbacks, we would have a net federal budget surplus. If we have honest, caring and patriotic elected officials in office, who are mostly from Independent Party members, then there is no need for the Federal Government to ever go into debt again.
Onerous Lending Practices
Lending institutions, such as banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, etc., have established a pattern of gouging the public for the use of their money, which in most cases is created out of thin air.
Loan Amortizations In the old days when someone loaned another person money at interest, at the end of the loan period the borrower paid back the original amount plus an agreed upon amount of interest. Today the Elite have devised loan amortization schedules that severely gouge the borrowers.
A Typical Loan Amortization Schedule
Loan based on 80% of the appraised value of the asset being mortgaged
Loan Amount: $100,000, Interest Rate: 6.25%, Period: 5 years
Payments of $615.72 per monthly for 360 months
The accumulated interest halfway through the loan, or after 180 payments: $82,638.96
Equity at mid-point, or after 180 payments: $71,809.36
Total interest paid during the 5-years of the loan: $121,656.04
The first payment is 84.59% interest.
The 51st payment is still 80.02% interest.
The 180th payment (or half way through the loan) is still 60.95% interest.
Payments don’t reach 50% interest until the 228th payment (after 63.3% of the number of payments have been made.)
Other Loan Practices
Loan practices vary between states, so you should contact your State Attorney General’s Office to determine the allowable rates in your state.
State of Texas - A commercial loan is a loan made primarily for use in the operation of a business, or for purposes of investment, agriculture or similar ventures. Commercial loans are authorized by Chapter 306 of the Texas Finance Code. They are currently subject to a commercial usury ceiling of 18 percent annual interest, which may float with inflation to 24 percent. Loans exceeding $250,000 may charge up to 28 percent interest.
Consumer loans are those made to individuals for personal use and various kinds of purchases. Limits on these loans vary. The law that governs the financing of motor vehicle sales, for example, allows an effective annual interest of up to 27 percent. Pawn shop loans can have maximum interest rates of 240 percent annually.
Credit cards are issued by many retail companies, most banks, and most credit unions as a convenient way to obtain small loans for purchasing just about anything food, merchandise, services, etc.
According to R. K. Hammer, banks will rake in nearly $22 billion in penalty fees this year (2009). But card issuers aren’t just punishing consumers who pay late or not at all. Even people who have never missed a payment are getting hit with higher rates and fees. While interest rates have been falling in general, the average interest rate on credit cards has climbed to 14%.
Banks are notorious for their present-day (2009) credit card practices, such as:
As you make payments, they credit the lowest interest rates first.
Interchange fees typically $2.00 per $100 charged ($42 billion charged nationwide in 2007)
Credit Card Processor fees (paid by the Merchants):
Gateway fee - $5.00 - 15.00
Statement fee $5.00 - 10.00
Monthly Minimum fee - $15.00 - 25.00
Per Transaction fee - $0.20 0.30
Address Verification fee - $0.05 - 0.10
Average Discount Rate 2.14 - 2.27%
Credit Card rates :
Purchases 10.00 34.99%
Cash Advances 10.00 - 34.99%
Balance Transfer fees 2 - 4% of amount transferred
Credit Card fees (paid by holder of credit card)
Late Payment Fees $32.65 average
Overdraft line of credit - $15 25 per year, plus 15 18% interest on overdraft amount
Courtesy overdraft protection - - $20 30 per year
Bounced check fee - $40.00 60.00 for each overdraft (if you are overdrawn of 4-5 checks the fee would be 4-5 times $40 - $60 for each overdraft)
The FED Chairman, Ben Shalom Bernanke, has promised to make major changes in credit card practices 18 months from now! (May 2009). This gives the credit card issuers plenty of time to gouge the credit card holders until these changes take place. When asked by members of the Senate Finance Committee why he could not make these changes now, he simply sat silent in his smug way and did not answer.
How to Fix It
Congress must pass a Consumers Bill of Rights law, which should include at least the following recommendations:
1. All collateral loans must be based on a minimum of 90% of the appraised value of the asset being financed, with the buyer paying for the appraisal. If the lending institution doubts the appraised value offered, then the institution should pay for a second appraisal.
2. All loan payments must include 50% for the principal and 50% for the interest
2. The maximum interest charged by any lending agency on any type of loan, including credit cards, must be no more than the yield on the 30-year Treasury bonds, current at that date, plus 4%.
3. Credit card fees to be no more than:
Late Payment Fees $10.00
Overdraft line of credit - $10.00 per year, plus 9% interest on overdraft amount
Courtesy overdraft protection - - $10.00 per year
Bounced check fee - $10.00 for each overdraft
4. Payments should be applied to the lowest interest rates first.
If the lending institutions don’t like these new regulations, then they should withdraw from offering credit cards. Everyone would probably be better off if credit cards were eliminated all altogether.
The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has the obligation to oversee the Stocks, Bonds and Commodities markets. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ), the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and others in the U.S. report the status of the companies listed on their exchanges. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJ) is the most popular means for reporting the computed value of the stock prices of 30 of the largest and most widely held public companies in the United States.
One would think that with all of this open reporting, that it would be very difficult for anyone or any company to scam the markets, due to all of this (so called) transparency. NOT TRUE! There are hidden groups who regularly manipulate the markets and they do it LEGALLY.
The Plunge Protection Team (PPT) President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12631 in 1988, which created The Working Group on Financial Markets (WGFM), or the PPT. This team is made up of the President, Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, the Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the Chairman of the Futures Trading Commission. Its stated purpose is to enhance ”the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation’s financial Markets and maintain investor confidence.” In plain English, taxpayer money is being used to make the markets look healthier than they are.
Source: page 310, Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown
We are not allowed to know what they do, when they do it, what they invest in, or for what reasons absolutely no transparency. Also, who else knows what they do, so that they can sell or buy the stocks, bonds, commodities or currencies being bought or sold by the PPT? Is this legal insider trading?
Primary Dealers Club (PDC) - Michael Bolser, member of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, stated:
It may sound odd, but the FED occasionally gives money (“permanent” repos) to its primary dealers (a list of about thirty financial houses, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, etc). They never have to pay this free money back; thus the primary dealers will pretty much do whatever the FED asks if they want to stay in the primary dealers “club.” Source: page 310, Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) The ESF was authorized by Congress to keep sharp swings in the dollar’s exchange rate from “upsetting” financial markets.
Market analyst Jim Sinclair writes:
Don’t think of an investment type, or even as a hedge fund. The ESF has no office, traders, or trading desk. It does not exist at all, aside from a fund of money and accountants to keep records. It seems that orders come from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or his designate (which could be a partner of one of the international investment banks he comes from), to intervene in markets…. Have you ever wondered how these firms seem to be trading for their own accounts on the side of the government’s interest? Have you ever wondered how these firms always seem to be profitable in their trading accounts, and how they wield such enormous positions? … Not only are they executing ESF orders, but in all probability, they are coat-tailing trades while pretending there is a Chinese Wall between ESF orders and their own trading accounts? Source: page 313, Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) is a private fraternity of big New York banks and investment houses. “Counterparties” are parties to a contract, normally having a conflict of interest. The CRMPG’s dealings were exposed in an article reprinted on the GATA website in September 2006, which was supported by references to the website of the Federal Reserve and the CRMPG. The author, who went by the name of Joe Stocks, maintained that the CRMPG was set up to manipulate markets, and that it was all being done with the approval of the U.S. government.
Source: page 314, Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown
So, there you have it. Most of what you believed about the sanctity of the U.S. financial markets is just not true. The Elite keep the public ignorant and confused by using smoke and mirrors. The PPT, PDC, ESF and CRMPG are just four of the groups involved in this grand deception. Certainly there are more behind the curtains.
How to Fix It
Congress must enact laws eliminating these “behind-the-curtain” organizations and require total transparency of all financial markets. The general public will not regain trust in these markets until it is all flushed out and these practices eliminated.
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act.
Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Lynchburg, Virginia, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.
The first Glass-Steagall Act was passed in February, 1932 in an effort to stop deflation and expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to offer rediscounts on more types of assets and issue government bonds as well as commercial paper. The second Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 in reaction to the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933.
The first Glass-Steagall Act was the first time that currency (non-specie, paper currency etc.) was permitted to be allocated for the Federal Reserve System.
The second Glass-Steagall Act, passed on 16 June 1933, and officially named the Banking Act of 1933, introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for insuring bank deposits. Literature in economics usually refers to this simply as the Glass-Steagall Act, since it had a stronger impact on U.S. banking regulation.
The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):
1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit -- lending -- and the use of credit -- investing -- by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act.
2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.
3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).
How to Fix It
The largest financial institutions in the U.S. are referred to as “Too Big to Fail”. They achieved this label as a direct result of their efforts to bribe Congress to repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
The Too Big to Fail policy is the idea that in economic regulation the largest and most interconnected businesses are "too big to [let] fail." This means that it might encourage recklessness since the government would pick up the pieces in the event it was about to go out of business. The phrase has also been more broadly applied to refer to a government's policy to bail out any corporation. It raises the issue of moral hazard in business operations.
The term is back to central stage since the start of the financial meltdown. The most important US company referred to as too big to fail is American International Group (AIG).
Some critics see the policy as wrong and counterproductive. They think big banks should be left to fail if their risk management was not effective.
Too Big to Fail
By PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: July 20, 2008
IN the narrative that has governed American commercial life for the last quarter-century, saving companies from their own mistakes was not supposed to be part of the government’s job description. Economic policy makers in the United States took swaggering pride in the cutthroat but lucrative form of capitalism that was supposedly indigenous to their frontier nation.
RESCUE Christopher Cox, the S.E.C. chairman, left, and Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, center, hear Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tell senators he wants authority to help save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Through this uniquely American lens, saving businesses from collapse was the sort of thing that happened on other shores, where sentimental commitments to social welfare trumped sharp-edged competition. Weak-kneed European and Asian leaders were too frightened to endure the animal instincts of a real market, the story went. So they intervened time and again, using government largess to lift inefficient firms to safety, sparing jobs and limiting pain but keeping their economies from reaching full potential.
Congress must reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, and make it much more powerful. All financial institutions must then be broken up into very carefully defined areas of operation, and should never again be allowed to mix these activities, which are a direct conflict of interest.
Almost everyone in elected office in Washington talks about creating jobs while they are running for election, or re-election. However, once in office they open up their back pockets to special interest groups, who are doing their best to eliminate all manufacturing jobs in the U.S., most of which are exported to China and India. They do this by ignoring the millions of undocumented workers within our borders; by allowing Elite owned and controlled corporations to ship our manufacturing jobs to the lowest pay and benefits nations around the world, and those with the least environmental controls over the manufacturing processes; and by issuing Visas to foreigners who would work for much lower pay and benefits than U.S. workers are receiving.
So, if there are more and more people searching for fewer and fewer jobs, then the law of supply and demand takes over, resulting in lower wages and benefits for all.
As of March 2009, the U.S. unemployment total was 139,833,000, with a rate of 9.0% out of work. The Los Angeles Times, on April 3, 2009 reported:
The official U.S. unemployment rate is bad enough, but another government measure of the ranks of jobless is far worse -- well into double digits.
The Labor Department’s broadest measure of unemployment reached a stunning 15.6% in March, seasonally adjusted. That was up from 14.8% in February and 9.1% in March 2008.
The official rate rose to 8.5% last month from 8.1% in February.
The official rate includes people who have been actively looking for work.
The government’s broadest measure of the jobless encompasses those who are trying to find a work as well as two other groups:
--- Marginally attached workers, defined as people who currently "are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past." This group includes "discouraged workers," people the government says "have given a job-market-related reason for not looking currently for a job."
--- Persons employed part time for economic reasons, which include people who "want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule."
So if the economy feels worse to you than an 8.5% jobless rate would suggest, it isn’t your imagination.
The U.S. State Department annually issues a large number of visas for a variety of reasons. Several of these Visas involve temporary or permanent workers in the public sector of the U.S. economy. During the economic crisis of 2007, and continuing, these Visas have continued to be issued, in spite of the devastating unemployment figures that are reported. It’s as if the State Department was completely unaware of reality, and their lack of concern for the U.S. public. The following came from the U.S. State Department, under a Freedom of Information Request:
A Visas: Diplomatic Personnel
B Visas: Temporary Tourist/Business
B-1 Temporary visitor for business
B-2 Tourist Visa (Temporary visitor for pleasure)
C-1 Visas: Continuous Transit
D Visas: Crewmember
E-1 Treaty Trader, spouse and children
E-2 Treaty Investor, spouse and children
E-3 Visas for Australians
F-1 Visas: Students (academic)
F-2 Visas: Student’s Spouse or child
G Visas: International Organization Representatives
H-1B: Specialty Occupations, DOD workers, fashion models
H-1C: Nurses going to work for up to three years in health professional shortage areas
H-2A: Temporary Agricultural Workers
H-2B: Temporary worker: skilled and unskilled
H-4: Accompanying Family Members
I Visas: Foreign Media representatives
J-1 Visas: Exchange Visitors
K-1 Visas: Fiancee/Fiance Visas/Spousal
K-2 Visas: Minor children of K-1
K-3 Visas: Spouse of a U.S. Citizen (LIFE Act)
K-4 Visas: Child of K-3
L-1A Visas: Executive, managerial
L-1B Visas: Specialized knowledge
L-2 Visas: Spouse or child of L-1
M-1 Visas: Vocational student or other nonacademic student
M-2 Visas: Spouse or child of M-1
N Visas: Relatives of Employees of International Organizations
O-1 Visas: Aliens with Extraordinary Ability and their Support Team
P Visas: Internationally Recognized Entertainers or Athletes
Q Visas: Cultural Exchange Visas
R-1 Visas: Religious Workers
S Visas: People Who Provide Information to U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies
T Visas: Victims of Trafficking
TN Visas: Trade Visas for Canadians and Mexicans
In addition to the above Visas, the State Department issues what they call Diversity Immigrant (DV) Visas. The 2008 authorized numbers were:
S. America & Caribbean 1,350
Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008
Source: www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/FSEmployBasedLPR2004.pdf -
The mass media and our government officials readily admit that there are around 12 million illegal immigrants within U.S. borders, but nobody knows for sure what this number is. More than likely it is probably on the order of 30 million, or about 1% of the total population. Most of these illegal immigrants are from Mexico, Central and South America. There is no question that these illegal immigrants will gladly do jobs that most U.S. citizens would not do, or that by, in large they are honest, dependable, hard working people and will work for much less pay and benefits than U.S. legal workers. The issue is that they chose to slip across the border illegally and have not gone to the end of the line of people who have legally applied for Visas and citizenship.
Because of NAFTA and the desire of the Elite to create a One World Government (Globalization), the efforts to stop this illegal immigration has been very limited on purpose. One of NAFTA’s goals was to eliminate the borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Then CAFTA was passed and the borders between Mexico and the Central American nations were to be eliminated, making one large group of nations, without borders, from North of Panama to the Northern tip of Canada.
The Mexican/United States open border allows illegal immigrants, possible terrorist, and all forms of illegal drugs to flow north, and for the money from the sale of these drugs, along with guns and ammunition to flow south. As a result of these drug issues 2,413 people died between Jan. 1 to Nov. 30, 2007, and over 6,000 narcotics related homicides were reported inside Mexico during 2008. Some of these illegal drugs are smuggled in by human mules as they cross the border, but most drugs are hidden within the many thousands of sealed containers that cross the border along with products from the Machiladora plants within Mexico.
The typical cost of refusing to stop illegal immigration into the U.S. is illustrated by a June 2002 article by the Los Angeles Times:
From the L. A. Times, June 2002:
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
1. Construct a 20-foot high fence, topped with razor concertina wire, along the entire 1,950-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, adding high-tech TV cameras, microphones, lighting, motion and other electronic sensors along the entire length. Roving guards should travel along a road on the U.S. side of this fence on an irregular time schedule looking for intrusions and holes in the fence.
2. Increase the number of border crossing stations along the Mexican border, providing sufficient lanes of traffic to minimize the delays of vehicles crossing. Inspect each vehicle 100% using drug-sniffing dogs, and if suspected of having drugs aboard, shunt the vehicle into a special holding area while all potential hiding places are searched. Confiscate the drugs and the vehicles, and arrest the occupants of the vehicles for trial.
3. Closing the land routes of drugs and illegal immigrants will cause this traffic to go to sea and into the air, so all ports of entry should be staffed with enough personnel and equipment to inspect 100% of all shipments and containers entering these ports. Increase the size of the U.S. Coast Guard all around the nation. It does not matter whether this slows down the legal shipments coming into this country or not. It’s more important to stop the drug flow and human traffic than the profits of the companies who import foreign goods.
4. Enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants by surprise inspections of any company suspected of hiring illegals, using E-Verify to determine the legality of all suspected workers. Pass a law mandating that each company must certify that all employees have been verified and certified as legal, signed by the top management of the facility. Should this certification prove to be false, arrest the top manager, charge that person with committing a federal crime, and if found guilty, fine that person $10,000 with a sentence of three years in prison with no time off for good behavior. The first offence of hiring illegals should result in a $5,000 fine to the company for each illegal found. The second offence of hiring illegals should result in a fine of $10,000 per illegal. A third offence should result in the permanent closing of the facility. Rigid enforcement of the above should start on the east coast of the U.S. and gradually move westward. The first year all the states along the Atlantic should aggressively monitor all employers to see that they are adhering to this new law. The next year, all the states to the west of these states should be monitored, then the following year, the next set of states to the west should be monitored. Once Texas has been reached with rigid monitoring, the states along the Canadian border should be targeted. Then the states below these states should be monitored, until the Mexican border has been reached. The object is to heard the illegal immigrants back to Mexico in an orderly fashion.
5. All U.S. Government funded projects must use materials that are 100% “Made in America”.
The G. W. Bush administration threw gasoline on the fire when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, because it caused the radical members of Islam to recruit many followers, who would gladly kill infidels by using suicide-bombing techniques. These radicals have immigrated, both legally and illegally to most of the industrialized nations of the world. Once there, they commence their protests of the traditions of the country in which they live, and insist on the particular nation to convert to Islam.
How to Fix It
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, of Australia, in a recent speech, has the answer to immigration problems:
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
The Elite are deliberately crashing the U.S. economy by ignoring illegal immigration, exporting manufacturing, technical support and technology jobs to the lowest pay and benefits nations around the world, especially to India and China. The goal is to level the pay and benefits of all jobs around the world to the lowest point possible, and to have more people looking for work than there are jobs to be had. This is the supply and demand theory. When young high school students ask which course of study should they pursue in the universities, the analysis immediately resorts to which jobs are not likely to be exported to other nations. This is the WRONG answer. They should study whichever field that suits them the best, the ones in which they would feel most comfortable doing. They should not live in fear that their chosen profession will vanish once they get their degree, due to outsourcing and exporting practices by the greedy CEOs of the U.S. companies.
Henry Ford, of the Ford Motor Company had the correct answer:
In 1914 the Ford Motor Company announced that it would henceforth pay eligible workers a minimum wage of $5 a day (compared to an average of $2.34 for the industry) and would reduce the workday from nine hours to eight, thereby converting the factory to a three-shift day. Overnight Ford became a worldwide celebrity.
Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.
Since 2001, the nation has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs and more than 850,000 professional service and information sector jobs. No one knows for sure how many of these jobs have been lost due to increased import competition and shifts in production abroad, since no comprehensive official data are collected. Various independent estimates indicate the number of white-collar jobs lost to shipping work overseas over the past few years is in the hundreds of thousands and millions are at risk in the next five to ten years. But the number of jobs lost need not be overwhelming in order to concern policymakers: increased overseas outsourcing also undermines wages and working conditions in those jobs left behind and threatens the long-term health of the economy.
Forrester Research Inc. predicts U.S. employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas by 2015. The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas estimates the number of service-sector jobs moving overseas each year will hit 588,000 by 2005. A University of California at Berkeley report finds 14 million jobs are at risk of being sent offshore, and predicts job losses will exceed the Forrester study’s projections.
Gartner Inc., a high-tech forecasting firm, estimates 10 percent of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of this year, while a study by Meta group projects 40 percent of corporate tech operations will move offshore by 2008.
A survey by Deloitte Research found the world’s 100 largest financial services firms expect to shift $356 billion worth of operations and about two million jobs to low-wage countries over the next five years. Another Deloitte survey of 42 global telecom operators projects 275,000 jobs in the sector will be sent off-shore by 2008.
How to Fix It
Deindustrialization of the U.S. is a very high national security risk. Should the U.S. go to war with China or India, where do we get out military equipment and supplies China or India? Also, there are many manufacturing jobs that require an extensive period of apprenticeship, like electronic technicians, tool & die makers, machine tool mechanics, journeyman machinist, etc. If these jobs are exported, what do we do for this talent in times of war?
1. Congress should immediately pass a law requiring the President to withdraw from the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), NAFTA, CAFTA, and all other trade agreements.
2. Congress should immediately impose tariffs on all imported goods at levels such that it would be exactly as cost effective to manufacture products in the U.S. as it is with each foreign source. Then notify each nation that U.S. tariffs would be set so as to result in equal balances of trade around the world. Each nation must buy the same amount from the U.S. as that country sells to the U.S. This is FAIR and EQUAL TRADE.
3. Congress must pass laws requiring each administration to maintain a balance of trade with all nations.
The Elite decided in about 1974-75, that they couldn’t fight, or didn’t want to continue fighting, the steady rise in wages and benefits demanded by the unions. There is an old saying, “If you can’t beat them, then join them.” Well, it didn’t quite happen that way. To the contrary, the Elite secretly asked the union leaders to join them. George Meany was president of the AFL-CIO union from 1955 until 1979, and was a CIA asset in 1968*. When Meany died in 1979, Lane Kirkland took over as president. Kirkland was the first to join one of the Elite organizations, the CFR. Thomas R. Donahue was his Secretary-Treasurer. John Sweeney was not a member of the Elite when he became President of the AFL-CIO in 1995, but was made a member of the CFR in 1998. The AFL-CIO controls over 68 different unions all over the U.S. The CFR had drafted Kirkland before 1974, and he had been a member until his death.
Union leaders in the Elite organizations in 2000 were:
Last Name 1st Name Org. Position Affiliation
Sweeney John J. CFR President AFL-CIO Union, 1995-
Thompson Linda Chavez CFR Exec. V.P. AFL-CIO Union
Meany* George CIA President, fmr. AFL-CIO Union, 1955-‘79
Kirkland Joseph Lane CFR,TC President, fmr. AFL-CIO U. 1979-‘95; fmr. Dir. CFR
Donahue Thomas R. CFR Sec., Treasurer AFL-CIO Union; fmr. Dir., CFR
Williams Lynn Russell BB Int. President United Steel Workers of America
Sheinkman Jack BB,CFR President Amalg. Clothing & Textile Wkrs. U.
Shanker Albert TC President Amer. Federation of Teachers Union
Joyce John T. CFR President Bricklayers & Allied Craft.
Mazur Jay CFR,TC President Int. Ladies Garment Workers Union
Watts Glenn Ellis CFR,TC President, fmr. Commun. Wkrs. of Amer.; Dir., CFR
Sources: Who’s Who of the Elite, by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.
And *Who’s Who in CIA, by Julius Mader, published in Berlin, 1968
After looking at the list above, it should be absolutely clear why almost all of the clothing sold in the U.S. is manufactured offshore. The leaders of the clothing unions have not represented their union members, but have obeyed the Elite leaders instead, and quietly let almost all of the textile and Clothing jobs leave the country in search of the lowest wages, least employee benefits, and least environmental controls.
Total employable in the above graph means everyone over the age of 16, in the 50 states and the District of Colombia, who are not inmates of institutions (such as penal and mental, and homes for the aged).
It would be very difficult for the Elite to de-industrialize the U.S. without the help of the union leaders. At the very least, it would take much longer. Before the passage of NAFTA and GATT, the union leaders made their usual loud complaints. Now, what are the rank and file union members going to do when they find out that their leaders have been spies for the enemy since 1955?
The Elite want to de-industrialize the U.S. for several reasons:
1. To reduce the cost of manufacturing products. This does not mean that the selling prices would be reduced accordingly. The savings would simply go to profits, and bonuses for the CEO’s of companies.
2. To gain much greater control of the operations of the companies. Without the unions, or with very weak unions, the company management can do as they please without union intervention.
3. This is one of the steps that are necessary in forming the Global Union, or New World Order. The Elite learned from the Soviets that in order for them to take over and install Communism, the Bolsheviks had to eliminate the middle-class. The middle-class was usually educated and could think for themselves. They could recognize a bad deal when they saw it. The Soviet leaders did this in a very drastic, but sure and quick way by murdering 66 million* middle-class citizens of the Soviet Union since World War I ended. The rich in the Soviet Union were part of the scheme, so they would not resist. The very poor were in such dire straits that they were only concerned about where their next meal was coming from, than they were as to who was in charge and how they got there. Also, if you see a middle-class neighbor murdered for no good reason, and this killing takes place out in the open public, you think twice before you offer resistance.
* Source Together for 200 Years, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn sums up by telling us that from the collectivization of agriculture to the death of Stalin in 1953, the communists killed 66 million people in the Soviet Union. On top of that he holds the Soviet government responsible for the death of the 44 million Russians he claims were killed in the Second World War. Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion is that 110 million Russians fell, victims of socialism’. As far as prisoners were concerned, Solzhenitsyn tells us that the number of people in labor camps in 1953 was 25 million.
And The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell the People, by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.
The Elite would not dare try this approach in the U.S., because our fellow citizens are too well armed. Therefore, they can accomplish almost the same thing, but take longer, by eliminating middle-class jobs, which would mean the end of the middle-class in the U.S.
The other tactic of the Elite was, and is, to de-industrialize the U.S. so as to nullify the effects of the unions. These two efforts caused the union influence on the U.S. to diminish to the point that they are no longer effective. The union domination of the labor force peaked in 1960 with 37.0% of the workforce, with a high of 16.9 million members. The number of members by the end of 2008, was 16.1 million, or 13.2% of the workforce. By 2005, union members accounted for 15.7 million members, or 12.5% of employed wage and salary workers, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.
Lou Dobbs Tonight, on CNN at 6:00 PM, on December 18, 2003, aired the following interview by Lou Dobbs of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:
DOBBS: My guest now is the head of this country’s largest labor organization, the AFL-CIO. Its president, John Sweeney, joins us tonight from Washington, D.C. Mr. Sweeney, good to have you with us.
JOHN SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: Thanks, Lou. Nice to be with you.
DOBBS: We have been reporting here on a number of pressures, the real pressure against the working middle class of this country. Why has your organization, for example, not been able to do more to stop some of the exportation of those jobs, to encourage and to work with manufacturers and other companies to preserve those jobs? (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is that, over the past 2.5 years, we’ve organized more than a million new members into the labor movement. But we’ve lost 2.5 million jobs. And that’s a reflection on our trade policies and what’s happening in the manufacturing industries. And there is a jobs crisis in this country. And while we see our economy recovering slowly, it’s a jobless recovery. And more attention...
DOBBS: Bill Tucker just pointed out, before we moved to the issue of jobs, job creation and the obvious loss of jobs, over the past 30 years, while this country has been listening to people talk, economists, CEOs, whomever, talk about productivity, we’ve actually seen earnings decline for workers in this country. How in the world can that be permitted to happen? (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: But, as a result of our trade policies, we’ve seen good jobs with good wages and benefits, health care and retirement security the victims of all of what’s going on in terms of the changes.
The growth in employment has been in the service sector, where there is organizing of members. But these are basically they start out as low-wage jobs with no benefits. And that’s a major factor of what’s happening now in our recovery. And trade is so important to our country. But we have to be paying attention to workers and the impact on them as well.
DOBBS: Well, John, I’m watching a current account deficit that’s rising above a half-trillion dollars. We’re watching millions of jobs already lost in manufacturing. It looks as though we’re seeing more than a million over the course of the past year or two years in this country, high-value jobs being outsourced abroad, exported to cheap labor markets. What can the AFL-CIO do to help stop these trends? (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: Well, we need an administration that’s willing to address job development, economic development, and the creation of jobs. And we also need a we need public policy that provides health care for American workers. We need trade policies that really are good for workers, as well as good for the economy.
DOBBS: My gosh, John, this president and this Congress have put through $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. The economy is, in any way you want to look at it, in the most objective, neutral way, it is smoking. Economic growth is booming in this country.
SWEENEY: Yes, but those tax cuts are going to the wealthiest people and to the corporations. The workers are not receiving the benefit of those tax cuts, except some modest tax refund.
DOBBS: Well, the average family of four, John, as you know, is going to is enjoying the benefit of about $1,400 a year. But the point I’m making is, in terms of job creation, I don’t suppose you want to wait until another administration, which may be in a year or it may be five years. What in the world can your union do to stop this trend to help this country, both in terms of trade policies and the outsourcing of jobs? (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: Lou, we don’t want to wait. We want to see some action sooner, rather than later. And to talk just about an economic recovery that’s a jobless recovery is an insult to American workers. And there are so many different ways of which we can work together with business and government and labor and the challenges before us. And shame on us if we can’t put that together.
DOBBS: Well, it’s shame on us, because we sure aren’t getting it together. When we look at a 30-year trend of declining manufacturing jobs, declining hourly wages for working men and women in this country, the shame on us is already here. Let me turn to something that your …
SWEENEY: But let me just say, in terms of the steel industry, look how the administration has reneged on the steel companies and the steel workers in terms of their trade policy.
DOBBS: Yes, but, John, then we look at the Clinton administration and we say, look what they did to the steel industry, for crying out loud. NAFTA has cost us 700,000 jobs lost in the last decade. The idea of doing this ideologically isn’t working in this country.
DOBBS: I’m sorry?
SWEENEY: We can talk about the past. But let’s talk about the current and the future, in terms of how we address the situation that we’re faced with now. This is not a political issue. This is a basic American issue, in terms of how we address workers.
DOBBS: Well, let’s talk about one of the policies that you’re following that I don’t comprehend at all. Your organization is trying to organize illegal aliens in this country. You’re trying to change immigration laws that would effectively open our borders and create amnesty for illegal aliens. And your organization knows as well as any other economist or anyone else in this country who has studied that is putting great, tremendous downside pressure for U.S. citizens. And I understand your desire to grow your union. I don’t understand your desire to grow your union by supporting those elements that are driving down wages. (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: Lou, this is not about growing our union. This is about how we address the issues of human beings. Our nation has been built by immigrant workers.
DOBBS: Oh, John, it hasn’t been built by illegal aliens. I mean, I’m as pro-immigrant as any person in this country.
SWEENEY: Well, then let’s...
DOBBS: It’s not a statement of fact to say we’ve been built by illegal aliens. We are a country of immigrants.
SWEENEY: I didn’t say we were built by illegal aliens. I said we were built by immigrant workers to our country. Let’s treat the immigrant workers as human beings. Let’s address the sense of fairness and justice, in terms of how our labor laws apply to these workers. (emphasis added)
DOBBS: John, I will bond with you on humanity. What I’m trying to understand is the economics and the politics of the AFL-CIO, who would, at one point, open their arms to illegal aliens, knowing full well that keeps because those corporations, those businesses, want to keep labor costs low, they’re turning a blind eye to a border that is as porous as one could imagine in their worst nightmare. And the unions are working side by side with them on that issue. (emphasis added)
SWEENEY: What about the corporations that are exploiting these immigrant workers? And what about the...
DOBBS: That’s what I just said.
SWEENEY: But let’s place the blame where the blame is to be, in terms of how do we protect these workers, how do we give them the same enforcement and the same kinds of protection. (emphasis added)
DOBBS: My gosh, John. John, I want to protect them. I want them treated humanely. But I want American workers’ jobs protected. And I want their wages to be decent and to be rising, not declining, like they have for the last 30 years. Doesn’t anybody get the fact this isn’t working?
SWEENEY: I think we agree in terms of protecting the workers who are here in our country. But let’s protect all the workers. And let’s provide for the same legislative protections that every worker should be entitled to in our country. (emphasis added)
Then on September 7, 2004, Lou Dobbs interviewed John Sweeney again.
DOBBS: And you’re union. Other unions across the country, what are your plans to provide greater momentum for the preservation of middle class jobs in this country, greater momentum for the creation of those jobs?
SWEENEY: Well, we have been really advocating policy changes, and we have been trying to even with the Bush administration, trying to get more resources for labor management programs that would include training and restructuring in the workforce. But the response has not been favorable, especially over the past four years. (emphasis added)
Read these interviews again. John Sweeney never did answer Lou’s direct question of what the AFL-CIO is planning to do about the terrible loss of jobs in the United States. Sweeney is only interested in following the directions of the Elite and organizing the illegal emigrants. His membership in the Council of Foreign Relations since 1998 and the Trilateral Commission since 2003 explains why. He and his fellow union presidents have sold out to David Rockefeller, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Elite, and are not fulfilling their duty to protect the U.S. labor force.
If we look at the relationship of the Unions, particularly the AFL-CIO Union, and the Elite, the picture becomes very clear.
In the past (prior to 1975), the labor union leaders were extremely active in unionizing companies, and calling strikes if wages, benefits, or working conditions warranted strikes.
All this changes in 1975 when David Rockefeller decided that the only way to get labor unions under control was to invite the key union leaders to join him in the secret organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Total manufacturing jobs in the U.S. peaked in March 1998. Between 1998 and 2005, 3.4 million manufacturing jobs were exported, and between 2005 and the end of 2007 an additional 3.6 million jobs were exported, for a total of over 7 million jobs exported from 1998 to 2007.
David Rockefeller was Chairman of the CFR from 1970 until 1985, has been Honorary Chairman since, and Joseph Lane Kirkland was President of the AFL-CIO Labor Union from 1979 until 1995. Kirkland was a member of the CFR from 1973-1986, and was a member of the Board of Director of the CFR from 1976-1986. It is quite difficult for this author to believe that David Rockefeller has not exerted great influence on the Union leaders since 1970. Therefore, the union leaders have abandoned their membership, and have joined the ranks of big business and the Elite.
Perhaps the answer is to replace the current presidents of the unions with people from the ranks of the unions, who will refuse to join the Elite secret organizations, but will demand that their companies bring 100% of the jobs back to continental U.S. soil. Perhaps strikes are the answer again. An excellent example is:
June 28, 2004 - SBC Communications Inc. said Sunday that it had reached a tentative agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on a 5-year contract, averting a strike by 11,500 SBC workers in Illinois and Northwestern Indiana.
One of the key issues that led to this strike was the union members concern about their jobs being outsourced to India and other low-paying, third world nations around the world. I had a long telephone conversation with a union leader for SBC Communications, Inc, in which I told him of what the Elite were up to. After giving my information very careful thought, his response was, “They will ship our jobs overseas over my cold and dead body.” Apparently he was very serious, because SBC finally agreed to bring the exported jobs back to the U.S.
Donald Gibson, in his book, Battling Wall Street, page 95, stated:
Expressing what had been the goals of (Robert O.) Anderson, (Joseph E.) Slater, and the (Aspen) Institute, Robert M. Hutchison said in a 1969 Aspen speech that the United States had to make a painful transition to a less production-oriented, post-industrial society.
The obvious question is then just who gave the Elite the right to ship our manufacturing jobs overseas and to de-industrialize the U.S.?
If someone expresses concern about the U.S. policy regarding Israel, they are immediately labeled Anti-Semitic. Likewise, if someone protests U.S. jobs being exported to the lowest labor rate countries around the world, they are immediately labeled Protectionist. And what is wrong with wanting our children and grandchildren to be able to earn a living in their chosen professions?
How to Fix It
All union members should be informed of the fact that their leaders have sold them out to the Elite, and that their leaders objectives are not to protect their jobs, pay, benefits and working conditions. After learning of this, if the union members want to continue paying their dues, so that their jobs can be eliminated, then they should stick their heads in the sand and let the world pass them by.
If Labor Union officials really cared about their members, they would do everything in their power to convince company managements to bring jobs back to the U.S. Having a meaningful job for the union members is much more important than demanding more wages and benefits. Once there is full employment, then Union officials can make reasonable demands for better pay, consistent with the skills required, and the rate of inflation’s effects on the cost of living. A single-payer National Healthcare program should take care of medical needs, and no employer should be interested in having an unsafe working place for their employees.
Source: What the Elite Have Done to America & How to Fix It, by Robert GAylon Ross, Sr.
The conspiracy facts are that Elite inner circle members of the Bilderbergs (BB), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Trilateral Commission (TC) are conspiring to politically and economically dominate the entire world under their New World Order, more recently called Globalization, or Global Union, Global Economy, Global Order, Global Environment, and like terms. When President G.H.W. Bush used the term New World Order in several of his speeches, it aroused suspicion and concern among the public. So, the Elite selected a generic term "Globalization" to use, and now Americans are no longer alarmed, because the business world uses this term daily, so it must not be so frightening. But, you cannot change a tiger's stripes. We're still talking about the New World Order. If you don't know about the BB, CFR, and TC, or who are the members of these secret organizations, then you must have a copy of Who's Who of the Elite.
Union of South American Nations
The UNASUR Constitutive Treaty was signed on May 23, 2008, at the Third Summit of Heads of State, held in Brasília, Brazil. According to the Constitutive Treaty, the Union's headquarters will be located in Quito, Ecuador. The South American Parliament will be located in Cochabamba, Bolivia, while its bank, the Bank of the South will be located in Caracas, Venezuela. The Union's former designation, the South American Community of Nations, abbreviated as CSN, was dropped at the First South American Energy Summit on April 16, 2007.
Is this an attempt by the Latin American Nations to protect themselves from the Elite, by forming a protective alliance of their own, or is this somethinng that the Elite have accomplished from behind the curtains? Will this be the South American Union?
The Elite originally planed to create the American Union some time during 2005 or 2006. This would include all of the nations of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands, and function just like the present European Union. There will be only one monetary system, one central bank, one (unelected) governing body, one military force, one judicial system, no borders, and no Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Elite have invented a new term for expanded NAFTA, which they now call FTAA, or Free Trade Area of the Americas. The Council of the Americas, at the Quebec City conference in March, 2001, stated very clearly that they plan to complete the FTAA by the year 2005.
Vice President Dick Cheney was thanked for his remarks at the Council of the Americas conference on May 6, 2002, by founder and Honorary Chairman, David Rockefeller. Cheney said that "the FTAA would be completed by January 1st, 2005". There seems to be a problem in doing just that. The members of the Senate, who must ratify any new treaty, are dragging their feet. They know what it's all about, but don't openly say it is a bad treaty, and is certainly not good for the citizens of the United States.
(Reference paragraph 18 of Cheney's speech at http://18.104.22.168/coa/events/2002-CheneySpeech.html and
Paragraph 12 of Otto Reich's speech at http://22.214.171.124/coa/events/2002-ReichSpeech.html)
It is obvious that they are really talking about the American Union.
The American Union follows the first step, the European Union, and then the African Union, in the Elite's plan to control the entire world. Next will be the Asian Union, and the Soviet Union, all to be completed between the years 2010 and 2015. This is not my speculation, it's their stated plans, as detailed in a UN document titled "Our Global Neighborhood" (available in any bookstore, on special order).
Thanks to the single handed efforts of a regional hero, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the creation of the American Union has been delayed until the Elite can get rid of Chavez (one way or another). So, until Chavez can be eliminated, the Elite must settle for the creation of the North American Union.
North American Union
The Bush Administration has been operating in secret to establish what may only be described as a North American Union with the U.S., Mexico and Canada, designed along the same lines as the European Union. It eventually means an end of the U.S. Constitution as our ruling document, to be replaced with a new North American government.
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 23, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action.
It will eventually lead to the surrender of U.S. sovereignty, independence and national borders. It will result in the establishment of a North American currency called the “Amero,” as the dollar is junked. The U.S. will provide the army for defense. The U.S. will provide Social Security benefits for those who are now citizens of Mexico and Canada. Gone will be U.S. citizenship. Gone will be any kind of border control between the three nations of North America (the current flood of illegal aliens will look like a picnic when our borders are gone).
Plans are well underway to establish a N.A.F.T.A. Super Highway, to be the width of eight football fields. It will run from Mexico to Canada, running through the middle of the United States. No tariffs and no inspections will be enforced as trucks from Mexico and Canada drive through what was once our nation. Kansas City, Missouri has been selected to serve as an “inland port” to handle imports and exports among the three nations. Operating quietly, Kansas City has already designated $2.5 million of its taxpayers' money to establish the port. Now, some say, the land on which the port sits will become officially Mexican sovereign territory.
The effort to bring this about began on March 23, 2005, after a summit that was held in Waco, Texas. It was attended by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Fox and Martin have since retired. The three leaders signed an agreement to create common policies about various economic and security areas among the three nations.
For obvious cover of official denyability the term “North American Union” is not being used. Instead the agreement officially authorized eight tri-national “working groups” to establish the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (S.P.P.). The concept is being sold simply as a new framework within which the member nations can create free trade and security within the North American continent. However, from the information in the working documents the intent to create the North American Union is impossible to hide.
The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration, has not been submitted to Congress for review. There is no congressional oversight. Nobody will have the opportunity to vote on it.
Security and Prosperity Partnership (S.P.P.)
The joint statement on the S.P.P., issued on March, 23, 2005, described it as an initiative to “establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.” The working groups are now laying the foundation for a European Union-style integration of the North American continent.
The White House has established the S.P.P. office in the North American Free Trade Agreement (N.A.F.T.A.) office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, where it has worked in virtual secrecy ever since it was established. As the plan proceeds, the S.P.P. groups have not released public reports of their activity.
Since its inception, at least 20 S.P.P. working groups have produced a number of memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement. These agreements cover a wide variety of issues, including e-commerce, aviation policy, border and immigration policy and the means for multiple governmental agencies to interact. They may be viewed on the Internet at www.spp.gov.
This report (North American Union) has been produced by The American Policy Center, 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton, VA 20186. 540-341-8911, www.americanpolicy.org. Much of the information for this report was contained in material produced by investigative journalist Jerome Corsi. His reports on the North American Union may be found on World Net Daily, www.worldnetdaily.com, Human Events, www.humanevents.com. More information was provided by Dr. Steven Yates, “The United States of North America,” The Ecologic Powerhouse, www.freedom.org. The blueprint for the North American Union may be viewed in its entirety on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org, and the official reports of the S.P.P. working groups, now operating out of the U.S. Department of Commerce, may be viewed at www.spp.gov. [Additional editing and format contributed by George Bushnell.]
Note: Neither Congress, nor the U.S. Citizens have had a chance to review this S.P.P effort, nor vote on it. The founders say that this is an Agreement, not a Treaty, so Congress and the U.S. Citizens have no right, or authority, to review this effort, or to vote on it.
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, a ship flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peacetime: for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Examples from the Past:
Feb. 15, 1898 - The Maine Bombing At 9:40 PM an explosion destroyed the American battleship Maine in Havana Harbor and helped propel the United States into a war with Spain. In 1976, Adm. Hyman Rickover, of the U.S. Navy, mounted yet another investigation into the cause of the Maine disaster. His team of experts found that the ship's demise was self-inflicted. Spontaneous combustion of the coal in bunker A16 created a fire that detonated the nearby magazines. 274 crewmen died in this sinking.
May 7, 1915 - The Lusitania - The sinking of the British cargo and passenger ship Lusitania by a German submarine caused serious tension between the United States and Germany and led to America's declaration of war against Germany. There were 5,246 total people on board, including 128 Americans when it sank. A total of 1,272 died in this sinking. 10,351,813 died as a result of WW I.
December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese Roosevelt knew 12 days before the attack that the Japanese were going to attack and did not warn the Military. The purpose was to have a reason to declare war against Japan. 2,403 military and civilians died this day. 72,155,800 died as a result of WW II.
March 13, 1962 Operation Northwoods - by L. L. Lemnitzer, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff a plan to invade Cuba and blame it on the Cubans. JFK turned down his request.
August 2nd & 4th, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident - The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. This did not happen. This was drummed up by the US military and President Johnson as an excuse to ratchet up the war in Vietnam. 8.744 million military served in this war, 58,169 Americans killed & 153,303 wounded, and 1,948 MIA; 1.7 mil. KIA, WIA & MIA N. Vietnamese military; 4,000,000 million Vietnamese (N. & S.) civilians died; 3 mil Vietnamese (N. & S.) casualties due to Agent Orange; 700,000 Cambodians civilians killed; and 50,000 Laotian civilians killed; 4,900 S. Koreans KIA; 1,446 Chinese Military; 16 Soviet Military KIA; 552 Philippine Military; 351 KIA Tailand; 520 KIA Australians; 37 KIA New Zealanders, during Vietnamese War. At least a total of 6,167,979 lost their lives in the Vietnam War. Total KIA/WIA/MIA casualties - 11,091,282.
February 26, 1993 - World Trade Center Bombing - The Muslim group involved had been infiltrated by Emad Salem, a former Egyptian intelligence agent who was hired by the FBI and ultimately paid $1 million. The FBI even provided the Egyptian with a timer for the bomb. 6 died and 1,042 injured.
April 19, 1995 Murrah Building, Oklahoma City A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 was caused by five separate bombs, and no ATF or FBI agents were in their offices at the time of the blast (about 9:05 AM) 168 died and 800+ injured in this blast.
September 11, 2001 World Trade Center & Pentagon attacks Dozens of researchers have accumulated hundreds of facts proving the complicity, if not full responsibility for these events, on persons within the US Government. 2,993 died, including 19 “terrorist”.
October 7, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan Predicated on the 9/11 false flag. Osama bin Laden was given full credit for 9/11 by Bush/Cheney/Rice. Another reason given was to remove the Taliban regime, which had provided support and safe harbor to Al-Qaeda.
By December 20, 2001, well over 2,000 Afghan civilians had already perished.
July 2007 407 US military killed and 1,636 wounded. 226 other nation’s military killed.
March 20, 2003 Invasion of Iraq predicated on WMD, links of Al-Qaeda. to Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, to free the Iraqi people and to bring democracy to Iraq.
As of July 30, 2007 US military deaths 3,651, British 163, other Coalition forces 129
Iraqi military between 4,900-6,375 died.
Between 68,009 and 74,403 Iraqi civilians died.
May 2005, Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi-exile physicist whose writings helped to discredit American and British fabrications about weapons of mass destruction, reported a story that in Baghdad a driver whose license had been confiscated at an American check-point was told "to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license." After being questioned for half an hour, he was informed that there was nothing against him, but that his license had been forwarded to the Iraqi police at the al-Khadimiya station "for processing"and that he should get there quickly before the lieutenant whose name he was given went off his shift.
"The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors. The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated ‘hideous attack by foreign elements’."
September 20, 2005 Two British soldiers dressed in Arab clothes, in a civilian car loaded with explosives and timers were arrested in Basra by Iraqi police. The British military attacked the police station to rescue these two British soldiers.
So, who knows who is REALLY responsible for the bombing of Mosques and Iraqi military and police facilities, businesses and shopping areas? It could be Palestinians on contract with Israeli Mossad without their knowledge of who is paying them; it could be British SAS or MI6 agents in disguise; it could be US Special Forces or CIA in disguise; it could be contractors working for the Israeli Mossad, or; it could be KGB (now FSB), it could be former members of the KGB working as contractors for any nation or secret service; or it could just be someone who just got out of the bed on the wrong side that day.
Why would the Mossad, FSB, CIA, MI6, SAS or other intelligence agencies want to destroy religious shrines and Iraqi facilities? Almost all problems around the world can be traced back to MONEY.
The financial crisis of 2007 has been building for a couple of years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average Intra-day Theoretical peaked at 14,121.04 on July 19, 2007. About a month later, on Friday, August 16, 2007 the Dow hit a low of 12,735.71, a loss of 1,385.33 points from the peak, or 9.8% drop. This drop triggered action by the Plunge Protection Team. As of February 3, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 7,935, almost half the average on July 19, 2007.
The four key members of the Plunge Protection Team (which reports directly to the President of the United States) are the Secretary of the Treasury (Henry M. Paulson), the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke), the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (William H. Donaldson), and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Acting Chairman Walter Lukken).
New York Post recently ran a piece on Washington’s tight-lipped Plunge Protection Team, or, the "Working Group," as it is formally known. Essentially, the role of this group is to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday" in the stock market. It was put into law in 1988, as Executive Order 12631, by Ronald Reagan. If you read the Executive Order you’ll note that it essentially allows the government (actually the Federal Reserve System, which is NOT a part of the Federal Government) to intervene in the stock market should a crash or foreseeable dip appear to be on the horizon via legislative law, administrative fiat, or the manipulation of private bodies via coercive tactics on the part of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, or the executive office. Section Two of the order states that its purpose and function is to recognize "the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence."
The Working Group was established in order to identify issues which studies have vetted out in regards to the events surrounding the 1987 market crash. Its purpose is to gather recommendations from anointed experts and consider what government actions, under existing laws and regulations, can be undertaken in order to carry out those recommendations. The last step is to "appropriately consult" with private sector bodies and participants in order to seek any possible private solutions. These "private solutions," however, will come from puppet organizations of the corporatist (banking) establishment.
The final goal, then, is to "maintain investor confidence" in the market in the case of sudden declines. When a rally immediately follows a downturn, the European press will refer to this as a "PPT Rally." Even the American press has not been shy about discussing plunge protection. This is from a 1997 piece by the Washington Post:
These quiet meetings of the Working Group are the financial world’s equivalent of the war room. The officials gather regularly to discuss options and review crisis scenarios because they know that the government’s reaction to a crumbling stock market would have a critical impact on investor confidence around the world.
"The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style sudden market break less likely. That is an issue we all spent a lot of time thinking about and planning for," said a former government official who attended Working Group meetings. "You go through lots of fire drills and scenarios. You make sure you have thought ahead of time of what kind of information you will need and what you have the legal authority to do."
...The Working Group’s main goal, officials say, would be to keep the markets operating in the event of a sudden, stomach-churning plunge in stock prices and to prevent a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds. Officials worry that if investors all tried to head for the exit at the same time, there wouldn’t be enough room or in financial terms, liquidity for them all to get through. In that event, the smoothly running global financial machine would begin to lock up.
So, the FED regularly intervenes in the stock, bond and commodities markets without transparency. Only the insiders know which stocks, bonds and commodities are being bought or sold by the FED. Obviously, if you are "in" on what is about to happen, you can "make a killing". Then, the insiders pump enough money into the pockets of the President and his Administration and both houses of Congress, so that they can get away with looting the public's pockets.
Deflation is defined as a decrease in the nations money supply, and inflation is therefore defined as an increase in the money supply.
M1 Money Supply - is defined as a basic measure of the money supply that includes all coins and currency held by the public, traveler's checks, checking account balances, NOW accounts, automatic transfer service accounts, and balances in credit unions.
M2 Money Supply - is defined as M1, plus savings and small time deposits, overnight repos at commercial banks, and non-institutional money market accounts.
M3 Money Supply - is defined as M2, plus large time deposits, repos of maturity greater than one day at commercial banks, and institutional money market accounts.
M3 Money Supply
Here is a 2006 statement on the FED's action on M3:
"Federal Reserve System announced that, as of March 23, 2006, they will be ceasing the publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. According to a Fed spokesman, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors wants to “de-emphasize the role of M3.” Academically, they add, this measure of money supply receives less attention than M1 and M2 do. A Fed spokesman also suggested that M3 is “no longer closely tracked by policymakers.”
For those of you who are not econogeeks, M3 is the broadest measure of money supply in the U.S.
My personal view on the elimination of M3 reporting is that the FED planned massive infusions and withdrawals in the financial markets because they planned this crisis and wanted to cover their tracks by not reporting M3. The FED didn’t want us to know about the large time deposits, repos of maturity greater than one day at commercial banks, and institutional money market accounts. Both houses of Congress have chosen to overlook the curtailment of M3 Money Supply reporting. They have been paid to look the other way.
The REAL United States Federal Debt
Lastly, the US REAL federal debt is actually over US$99.2 trillion (as of May 2008). Who says so? The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher, in a May 2008 speech at the Commonwealth Club of California. Our descendants for the next century will not be able to pay this debt off. The Elite international bankers don't want it paid off, because they want the interest on this debt to keep flowing.
Though the Bush Administration’s official budget lists the national debt and deficit as being incredibly high, they are actually far worse than reported, according to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). But don’t just take his word for it, even if Cooper is a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law graduate. The following figures appear in the official U.S. Financial Report, released by the Treasury Department:
* The true national debt is $49 trillion, not the $8.3 trillion Bush reported
o That’s $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American
o This figure has more than doubled in the past five years
o We paid $327 billion last year on interest alone
* The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
o This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
* It’s all getting worse
What accounts for the huge discrepancy? Unlike businesses, the government uses “cash” instead of “accrual” accounting. This means that the government does not report future spending promises like Medicare and Social Security, or even future spending guarantees like veterans’ benefits and federal employee pensions.
“Cash accounting tells you what’s in your bank account. Accrual accounting tells you what’s in your bank account and what’s on your credit card statement,” Cooper told BuzzFlash in an interview. “Whether you’re promising to buy a road or something at Target, you need to know what you promised to buy. That should be a binding obligation of the government. We’ve made a world of promises to folks that we need to keep.”
But wait, there’s more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is “probably closer to $65 trillion.”
Jul. 7, 2007 Source: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/07/blood-and-treasure/
Laurence J. Kotlikoff, in his October 2005 paper titled, “Is the U.S. Bankrupt?”, estimates that the US real debt, in 2005, was $65.9 trillion, and in order to pay this debt off our children and grandchildren will be paying a federal income tax at the rate of 63% to 80.6%. This means that in 2007 it could be in the $70 to $75 trillion range.
For over 50 years the CIA has been involved in regime changes around the world. If they cannot get the citizens of a particular country to oust a particular leader from office at the voting poles, or by coup de gras, they have contract killers do the job for them.
Jun. 27, 1954 - Jacob Arbenz Guzman,
President - Guatemala
Jan. 17, 1961 - Patrice Lumumba,
Prime Min. - Republic of Congo
Nov. 1, 1963- Ngo Din Diem,
President - South Vietnam
Nov. 22, 1963 John F. Kennedy
President, United States
Jan. 17, 1973 - Salvador Allende,
President - Chile
May 9, 1978 - Aldo Moro,
Pres., Christian Dem. Party Italy
Jul. 31, 1981 Omar Efrain Torrijos, de facto leader - Panama 1968-81
May 24, 1981 Jaime Roldos Aguilera, President - Ecuador 1979-81
Since President Hugo Chavez took office on February 2, 1999, the common people of Venezuela have backed him and his reforms. Chavez insists on keeping more of the oil export profits in Venezuela, so that his nation can recover from its chronic financial problems. His strong will has been the stumbling block to the completion of the American Union. The CIA has backed coup attempts to oust this "radical" leader, but the Venezuelans have turned out by the thousands to protest these attempts. The petroleum industry strikes were not strikes at all. They were lock-outs by the oil industry managers, in order to try to embarrass President Chavez, and to turn the public against him. (http://www.narconews.com/)
The Elite-owned mainstream news media and the current Bush Administration have been trying to smear Chavez as being a Communist, a Socialist, a Dictator, and the like, and have made several attempts to remove him from office. This is no differrent than the FBI smearing Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr. with a host of outright lies before they had him assassianted.
President Hugo Chavez is a true American hero. He thumbs his nose at the international bankers as he single-handedly stops the American Union. He has stunned the Elite with the following speech from the 7th African Union summit in Banjul, the Gambia:
July 02, 2006
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Saturday proposed four areas of cooperation among the peoples of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean in the spirit of South-South cooperation.
In an extemporaneous speech to African leaders attending the 7th AU summit in Banjul, the Gambia, Chavez suggested the establishment of a joint commission to set up four projects, which he listed as "Petrosouth, Telesouth, Bank of the South and University for the South".
He said through Petrosouth, the leaders would harness the power of oil, which he called a powerful instrument for social development, to develop their peoples.
"It was used by the colonialists (to oppress us). We are now going to use it to liberate our peoples," the President said, adding that 15 percent of the world`s oil reserves are in Africa.
He said Telesouth would involve the establishment of a TV station for the peoples, while the Bank of the South will be a development bank to assist the poor from the three areas. (Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela will provide the funds for this Central Bank, and its purpose is to provide low-interest loans to Latin American nations, so that they can get out from under the domination or the Elite international bankers and their IMF and World Bank.)
Chavez said the University of the South would help train the youths of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean in key areas.
On December 13, 2002, Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva appointed international financier Hernando Meirelles as head of the Central Bank of Brazil. Meirelles was the former president of FleetBoston Financial Corp., and served as a director of David Rockefeller’s Council of the Americas.
On December 26, 2002, Argentina's Senate approved the appointment of Alfonso Prat-Gay as president of the Argentina's Central Bank. Prat-Gay was formerly the head of emerging market research for J. P. Morgan Chase bank. David Rockefeller is Chairman of the bank’s International Advisory Committee.
Fast Track Legislation
On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002 (or fast track legislation). This is also referred to as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). This means that he may be able to complete the North American Union on schedule, because Congress will now only be allowed an up or down vote on treaties that he presents. The Elite will publicly shame and humiliate anyone in the Senate who votes against their treaties. They have reduced their opposition greatly by making sure that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and Congressmen Earl Hilliard, and Bob Barr were defeated in recent primaries. They had already ousted Jim Trafficant earlier. Congressman Ron Paul is next on their list.
Senate Majority Leader
Now we really know why Senator Trent Lott was replaced. Not because he made an improper statement (and it was improper), but because he was NOT a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Elite need to do many things within the next few years in order to complete the North American Union and the American Union, so they MUST have one of their own heading the U.S. Senate. The perfect replacement is Senator William (Bill) H. Frist, who was made a member of the CFR in 2002. Did they make him a member of the CFR because they knew that he would be the likely replacement for Trent Lott? Very likely.
Success out of Fear
"Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger, in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed using a concealed tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. Henry Kissinger is an inner-circle member of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission, and a long-time right-hand-man of David Rockefeller, who aspires to be the Czar of the Global Union. Only Rockefeller has attended more Bilderberg meetings than Kissinger.
Is the current fear of terrorist what Kissinger was talking about? All of the evidence is not in yet linking the Elite to the Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies of 9/11, but you can rest assured that they are using these crashes and terrorist threats to tighten up, and eliminate many of our rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The next step is to destroy the Second Amendment to our Constitution - our right to private ownership of firearms.
Bush had appointed Kissinger to head up the commission to investigate the 9/11 terrorism tragedy. However, he withdrew from this position when the law required that he reveal his customer list at Kissinger & Associates. Kissinger is under indictment from several nations for his past crimes, including Italy, Chile, Spain, France and possibly others. He cannot travel to these nations without being arrested and brought to trial.
Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A major obstacle to the completion of the American Union is the fact that we have the right to private ownership of firearms. No dictator has ever taken control of his country without first confiscating the citizens guns. The Elite know this, so they have created the organization called "The Department of Homeland Security", which was formed with the expressed purpose of defending this nation against terrorist attacks from the outside. In reality, this is the beginning of a "police state", which will be used to "handle" the militias that will protest the confiscation of firearms owned by Americans. Every time that a firearm is used in an incident, the mainstream news media, and several members of Congress, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (BB & TC), demand that we have much more restrictive control of weapons.
Will we find out twenty years from now that the "DC-Area Sniper" was actually a member of one of the CIA's black-operations organizations, or was under CIA mind control as he shot his victims? There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was under CIA mind control when he (allegedly) bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
Australia was once a penal colony for the British Empire, so most of the citizens of this nation are descendents of convicted criminals. Most U.S. citizens are not aware of the fact that Australia immediately outlawed private ownership of firearms after Martin Bryant, a so-called "mad murderer", killed 35 and wounded another eighteen people on the public streets of Port Author, Tasmania, in April 28, 1996, using an AR-15, .223 cal. assault rifle. Within twelve months after the outlawing of guns were passed by the Australian government, 640,381 guns were bought off the streets at the cost of over $500 million, Australian. Twelve months later, a study was made of the effects of such radical gun control, with the following results:
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2%.
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6%.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies went up 44%.
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms went up 300%!
The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
During the years 2001 and 2002, armed robberies, Australia wide, increased 34.1% over the period just before the elimination of private ownership of firearms.
The Elite have already established "concentration camps" on military bases in the U.S. to house the militia members and other protesting citizens once they have outlawed private ownership of weapons.
Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, 14 August, 2002
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.
The Elite cannot accomplish their American Union (New World Order) without declaring Martial Law. In order to justify such a drastic measure, there must be a major crisis, such as a violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a U.S. military invasion abroad, resistance to the outlawing of ownership of guns by U.S. citizens, or a major financial crisis. We are now on the verge of all of the above, with the invasion of Iraq, constant demands for tighter gun control to stop terrorist acts, and the Wall Street melt down. Opponents of this action would without doubt file civil action to stop Martial Law from being enacted, which means that it would doubtlessly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. You might surmise then that this court would rule in our favor, until you learn that two sitting judges on this court are members of the CFR; Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You might say that the chances of the CFR controlling the Supreme Court are slim, until you learn that during one of the recent changes in this court, on the short-list of five candidates, "only" CFR members were considered for the vacated position.
Spying on U.S. Citizens
There is now a proposal to open all snail-mail sent to Congress, digitize it, and make it available to the recipient by E-mail. The stated purpose of doing this is to protect members of Congress from anthrax, and to save their staff time in opening the mail. The REAL reason is to snoop the correspondence to see what is inside. All electronic means of correspondence are now being monitored by NSA's operation ECHELON. Once they have digitized the snail-mail, there will be no secrets between members of Congress and their constituents. They now snoop every electronic transmission (fax, E-mail, telephone, Telex, radio, etc.) by the N.S.A.'s Operation ECHELON. For details check out the following web sites: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ECHELON/echelon.html) and (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html)
Now they are considering establishing a spy agency to monitor all U.S. citizens, just like the MI-5 spy agency does in Great Britain. This group of spooks will probably be positioned within the new Homeland Security Agency.
The National Security Act of 1947 established the CIA, and prohibited it's operations within the United States. However, the CIA was granted legal authority to spy on U.S. citizens by Executive Order 12333, dated Dec. 4, 1981, signed by Ronald Reagan. This E.O. reads: Article 1.8 (c) Conduct counterintelligence activities outside the United States and, without assuming or performing any internal security functions, conduct counterintelligence activities within the United States in coordination with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General; Article (i) Conduct such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (a) through (h) above, including procurement and essential cover and proprietary arrangements. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html)
Now, you are going to say that I've really gone crazy! But, what if the Elite invented a very small robot, or nanobot, and injected it into your bloodstream when you get your next injection, and when the time is right, they send a signal to your body activating these little devils to do their programmed duty? This duty could be either beneficial or detrimental - who knows? There are frequent scares about anthrax and other biological agents threatening our lives. Could this be an opportunity to inject these nanobots into your bloodstream? Now if you don't believe me, do a web search on Nanobots, or check out one of these sites: (http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crh275.htm) or (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-02a.html) or (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/news.cfm?p_ID=2275)
Many of the Elite leaders are members of the Bohemian Club, who meet annually at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California, where they worship their Moloch, in the form of a giant concrete owl, as they march around the sacrificial table in their medieval robes, uttering their pagan chants. Alex Jones secretly took a video camera into one of the Bohemian Grove meetings, and recorded a very disturbing ritual. Check it out at: (http://www.infowars.com)
International Bankers as the Ruling Class
There are several terms used to describe those in the inner circle who direct the Elite, such as central bankers, international banking families, world banking cabal, and the like, but the two families who really are in charge are the Rockefellers, headed by David Rockefeller, and the Western European and United Kingdom's House of Rothschild, headed by David de Rothschild. In 1998 the Rockefeller family was worth $11.48 trillion, and the Rothschild family was worth somewhere between $100 and 900 trillion. When they need money, they just print it. They create their money out of thin air, and it is backed by nothing. You cannot trade it in for gold or silver. These International bankers own the Central Banks in every nation in the world, except the so-called seven rogue nations. The U.S. State Dept. defines "rogue nations" as any nation that harbors of supports terrorists. The present nations that meet this definition are/were: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. There is no evidence that Cuba or North Korea harbor or support terrorist, so the only common thread between these countries is that none of them allow the International bankers to control their central banks. (Afghanistan and Iraq were removed from this list when the U.S. Invaded them. One of the first acts after the invasion was to set up an Elite controlled Central Bank.)
Oil & Gas
The world's total oil reserves are around 928 billion barrels (Gb), with about 63% resting within the Middle Eastern nations. Saudi Arabia has about 280 Gb (about 25-30%) of this oil in its reserves, with about 8.3 million barrels a day (mbd) of production, while Iraq has about 102 Gb in reserve (or about 11% of the worlds total supply) and produces about 2 million barrels a day. The typical cost to lift a barrel of oil to the surface in the Middle East is about $3.00 per barrel, while the cost to lift a barrel in Iraq is about $1.00 per barrel. According to Mike Ruppert, of "From The Wilderness" newsletter, the total world "conventional" production of oil peaked around the year 2000. As new wells are completed, many others are abandoned for lack of economic production. The world's consumption rate, in 2001, was 22 Gb/year, and the current discovery rate is about 6 Gb/year. There is no significant substitute for oil on the horizon. This means that whoever controls oil, controls the rest of the world. As the available supply diminishes, the price will climb (a simple supply/demand reality).
Global demand for oil is increasing by between 1.5 and 2 mbd each year, and could grow from the current 77 mbd to 120 mbd within the next 20 years. OPEC production is expected to grow from 28 mbd (in 1998), to 60 mbd by 2020. Saudi Arabia supplies around 1.7 mbd of the roughly 10 mbd imported into the U. S. at present, and sells its oil for about $1.00 per barrel less to the U.S. than it charges other nations of the world.
Russia is gaining on Saudi Arabia as the world's greatest producer. In 1996 the Soviets production amounted to about 7 mbd, but just before the Soviet collapse, they produced around 12.5 mbd. The estimated Caspian Sea reserves have been disappointing after recent studies. There were a number of pipelines planned in order to deliver this oil to the consumers.
The war in Bosnia was simply to gain a possible route for an oil and/or gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the West to a salt water port.
The war in Afghanistan was simply to establish a route for oil and/or gas from the Caspian Sea oil fields through Pakistan to a salt water port to the South, and oil and/or gas pipelines from these same fields to China.
Iraq was invaded simply to gain control of its massive oil reserves and Iraq's Central Bank. When Saddam Hussein said this, the Elite's puppet news media scoff at him, and keep on demanding that the reason was to destroy his weapons of mass destruction.
Is it a coincidence that President Bush I and II, and Vice President Cheney are from the oil industry? In fact, Bush I was partners with Saddam Hussein in the oil business before the Gulf War.
Skull & Bones Society
One stepping stone into these secret societies is the Skull & Bones Society at Yale University, as well depicted in the movie "The Skulls". The 1995 edition of Who's Who of the Elite names all of the members of this shadow government, and reveals where they work, the secret societies that they belong to, and their job titles, so that you can see the stranglehold that they have on our federal government, the mainstream news media, industry, labor unions, universities, foundations, the Supreme Court, and all facets of the financial world. Senator Prescot Bush, President G.H.W. Bush and President G.W. Bush were all members of the Skull & Bones Society, a stepping stone into the main secret societies.
Freedom of the Press
BILL of Rights - 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, Congress cannot destroy freedom of the press, but the Elite can, and have done so since the beginning of the twentieth century. If they are to be successful in establishing their New World Order, or Global Union, in enhancing their wealth and securing this wealth, they must maintain absolute secrecy concerning their organizations and activities. Therefore they must control the newspapers, news magazines and the television networks. Then, they must swear all their members to absolute secrecy. They can easily enforce this secrecy by threatening, or implying threats of, financial ruin to, and character destruction of, anyone who divulges the contents of any of their meetings, or discussing their activities.
Article II of the by-laws of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) states: “It is an express condition of membership in the Council, to which condition every member accedes by virtue of his or her membership, that members will observe such rules, and regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors concerning the conduct of Council meetings or the attribution of statements made therein, and that any disclosure, public, or other action by a member in contravention thereof may be regarded by the Board of Directors in its sole discretion as grounds for termination or suspension of membership pursuant to Article I of the by-laws.”
Is it not surprising then that the anchors of all of the major television networks remember this by-law very vividly as they report the daily "news". Members of the secret societies who bring us this "news" are: Peter Jennings (BB), Dianne Sawyer (Director of CFR '98-99), Garrick Utley (Dir. of CFR '93-), Barbara Walters (CFR), George Will (TC), Lesley Stahl (CFR), Ed Bradley (CFR), Marvin Kalb (CFR), Dan Rather (CFR), Jesse Jackson (CFR), Bernard Kalb (CFR), Frank Sesno (CFR), Tom Brokaw (CFR), John Chancellor (CFR), Elizabeth Drew (CFR), Bill Moyers (BB), George Stephanopolos (BB, CFR), Michael Beschloss (CFR), and Paula Zahn (CFR). Other prominent Elite in TV who are/were: Roone Arledge (CFR), Laurence Tisch (CFR), Thomas Wyman (CFR), Thomas Murphy (CFR), David Brinkley (CFR), Carl Zelnick (CFR), Barbara Cochran (CFR), Roland Evans (CFR), Joan Richman (CFR), Joan Cooney (CFR), Wyatt Johnson (CFR, TC), Carl T. Rowan (TC), Jane Pfeiffer (CFR), Herbert Schlosser (CFR), Robert Frederick (CFR), Sharon Rockefeller (CFR), and Michael Eisner (CFR). You can find out who else in the mainstream news media belong to the secret groups, BB, CFR and TC, in our first book, "Who's Who of the Elite".
Neither Sam Donaldson, nor Cokie Roberts (ABC's This Week, Sundays) were members of the CFR, so to make sure that they had control, the Elite replaced them with George Stephanopolos (BB, CFR). Now we see more members of the CFR on this show, such as Robin Wright (CFR) and George Will (TC).
An example of how the Elite deny us the facts was during the 32nd Washington Conference of the Council of the Americas, held May 5 - 7, 2002. I was watching CNN at the beginning of the hour when they show brief 1-2 second snippits of what will be covered in the following hour. On this occasion they showed David Rockefeller shaking Secretary of State Colin Powell's hand after introducing him as the next speaker. I watched CNN for the next 3-4 hours without seeing this event being covered. Some CNN executive saw this on his TV monitor, and probably ran to the control room and told them NOT to show this event. All mainstream news media have been carefully instructed to NEVER cover any event that David Rockefeller, or the Rothschild family are involved in. Now, I ask - why is this?
You can read Colin Powell's speech at: http://126.96.36.199/coa/events/2002-PowellSpeech.html
Our current voting procedures are a sham. In an effort to speed up the vote counting process (or so "they" would like you to believe), they have, in most instances, gone to computer assisted voting. Once the votes have been digitized, they are easily manipulated, and in most cases a recount is impossible. Is this how the Elite have controlled the White House, The Senate and the House of Representatives. Is this by accident, or was this accomplished by rigging the voting process?
Senator Paul Wellstone's Death
Was Senator Paul Wellstone's death an accident? Many, including some members of Congress, are concerned. If you have not learned it by now, there are many in our elected offices who will do ANYTHING to reach their goals, or to protect their interests.
(http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0012/0044.html), (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/12/irp-001201-col.htm), (http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2000-December/004162), (http://www.americas.org/news/nir/20001210_herbicide_douses_u_s_senator.asp)
Many of our nation’s problems are caused by the lack of adequate Legislative oversight. This failing has gotten worse since around 1975 (when David Rockefeller became Chairman of the CFR), and regardless of which party is in control. Below are my suggestions of what they should be investigating:
1. Great Depression of 1929 - The Federal Reserve System deliberately caused the ’29 depression by manipulating the U.S. money supply. From 1915 to early 1929, the money supply was very loose. You could get a loan to do almost anything. The Standard & Poor’s Index followed the same pattern during this same period. Both went into free-fall from ’29 to ’33. The Fed drastically tightened the money supply, and loans were almost unavailable, resulting in a panic. Unable to pay their massive debts, many committed suicide. Those who try to cover for the Fed say that the depression was caused by the Glass-Spiegal Act, which is far from the truth.
2. The Attack on Pearl Harbor - President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese Navy was heading for Hawaii twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he failed to warn the military leaders stationed on this island. His purpose was to create an excuse to declare war against Japan during WW-II.
Source Gregory Douglas, author of "Gestapo Chief".
3. The Vietnam War The U.S. State Dept. said that at 3:40 a.m. EDT (3:40 p.m. Saigon time), August 2, 1964, the destroyer Maddox, on patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported that it was "being approached by high speed craft with apparent intention of torpedo attack. Intend open fire in necessary self defense." (Message 020740Z to Commander Seventh Fleet; Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files: Lot 72 D 219, DeSoto Patrols, August) Twenty-seven minutes later, the Maddox reported that it was being attacked by three North Vietnamese patrol craft and had opened fire. (Message 020807Z to Commander Seventh Fleet; ibid.) In the ensuing engagement, the Maddox and aircraft from the U.S.S. Ticonderoga damaged two of the patrol craft, which retreated to the North, and left one dead in the water. Reports on the incident reached Washington shortly after 4 a.m. U. S. military escalation was justified on the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin attack against U. S. ships. We know today that this incident was fabricated purely to deceive the American people in order to win their support for additional military action. Expert witnesses 19701971 Emmy Award winning, CBS’s "60 Minutes" anchor, Morley Safer and his producer, Joe Wershba, blew the whistle on the phony Gulf of Tonkin attack tale, the start of the domino effect in Vietnam.
4. Operation Northwoods March 13, 1962, L. L. Limnitzer, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed that a bevy of lies be spread upon the U.S. public to justify the invasion of Cuba. Typical lies that were to be spread:
“….We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
…We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in Cuba waters
….We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. …We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). ….Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement…
…Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complimentary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact.
… Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.
… It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil aircraft…”
Luckily, this plan was shot down by President Kennedy before it could take place, but this was a clear example of the top military commander at the time, Limnitzer, losing control of his senses and risking war with the Russians. Source James Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets".
5. Assassination of President John F. Kennedy This tragic murder directly involved Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and many other prominent men of the time. The Warren Commission was used to keep Congress from doing it’s own investigation.
Source Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr., author of The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK.
6. Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy Those involved in the JFK killing were also involved in this murder. Lyndon Johnson made sure that Congress looked the other way on this one as well.
Source Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr., author of The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK.
7. The assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The same people who planned the killings of the Kennedy brothers were also directly involved in the murder of King. J. Edgar Hoover’s efforts were exposed by the Senator Frank Church Select Committee to Study Government Operations in 1976, which laid out Hoover’s and the FBI’s efforts to discredit MLK. Source Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr., author of The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK.
8. The Gulf War Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein - “But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” This was President George Herbert Walker Bush’s direct invitation for Iraq to invade Kuwait, so that he could become a hero by saving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the invading Iraq army.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL" SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990, quoted from the transcripts of the meeting between Hussein and Glaspie.
9. War with Yugoslavia The Elite needed to change the government of Yugoslavia so that they could run pipelines from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the West to a salt water port.
Source - William F. Hagel, author of "The Hidden History of the War Against Yugoslavia".
10. War in Afghanistan The Elite needed to change the government of Afghanistan so that they could run pipelines from the Caspian Sea oil fields to China, and South to a salt water port, without going through Iran. The wars in both Yugoslavia and Afghanistan were necessary to protect the interests of big oil, big banking, money laundering, and illegal drug trafficking. They also wanted to take over the Central Bank of Afghanistan, which they immediately did after the U.S. invasion. Equally important was the need to remove the Taliban, which had outlawed the growing of opium plants. Just prior to the U.S. invasion the production of opium was headed to zero. Immediately after this invasion, production was resumed.
11. The 9-11 attacks on America - There is no evidence (yet) that the Elite were directly involved in the 9-11 attacks, but they certainly have used this event to destroy our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Perhaps some day in the future someone who was directly involved in these attacks will have a major attack of guilty conscience and spill the beans. That is unless they can kill him/her before the beans are spilt.
12. Executive Orders The powers of the Presidency have been greatly enhanced through the use of Executive Orders, to the great loss of control by Congress. Laws must originate in Congress, not the White House. Perhaps one day Congress will regain the courage required to stop the use of Executive orders to enact laws.
13. The Secret Elite have taken over the U.S. Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission have quietly taken over almost all key positions within our government, the news media, the Labor Unions, academia, banking, foundations, industry, and on and on. Their goal is to subvert the Bill of Rights and Constitution, to destroy the sovereignty of this nation, and to bring it under the control of the Global Union. Those who participate in this conspiracy are committing Treason.
"Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Conference at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. Henry Kissinger has attended most of the Bilderberg Conferences, and is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission.
It is absolutely necessary that both houses of Congress hold extensive hearings on the above, as soon as possible, and before the United States becomes the second phase of Globalization - the American Union.
The definition of Treason is: The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.
Before the federal elected officials take office, they must first swear the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of ___________________, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.
Therefore, anyone who is a federally elected official, and who violates this oath is very simply committing absolute TREASON. Then, if all of the above is true, then we have hundreds within our federal government who are very clearly committing treason. Why is nobody charging them with treason? Why don't you ask your elected officials this question.
Quotes That You Should Remember
The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushes its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks. . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. . . the issuing power should be taken from the banks, and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money-changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent plans possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance. - James Madison
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency, and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government, and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals, the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity. - Abraham Lincoln
If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. - Andrew Jackson
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astonishing piece of slight of hand ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And, they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of the bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money, and control credit. - Sir John Stamp (former governor of the Bank of England)
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. . . . These United States of America can never be destroyed from forces outside its borders. If America falls, it will fall from within. Brought down by apathy. When good people do nothing, Anarchy reigns.
- Abraham Lincoln in a 1854 letter to Congress
We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states, and all national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them. The merging of states is inevitable.
- Lenin in his Imperialism and the Right to Self-determination
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians (6: 12)
Expose the works of darkness. - Ephesians (5:11)
With this knowledge, you will be better prepared to interpret the news media's reporting, and the governments actions as time moves on toward the completion of the American Union.
You be the Judge
If you want the details of this EVIL effort, take the time to read all of the information contained on this web site by pressing the "blue" buttons on the left. If you do, you will never watch the news on TV, or read the news magazines and newspapers the same way that you do now.
Explore this site, research our materials, check with other sources and come to your own conclusions.
You Are Visitor:
WebCounterTM by Net Digits