Log in



Categories » ‘Politics’

The U.S. & China going in opposite directions

January 20th, 2011 by

LeMetropoleCafe

The U.S. & China going in opposite directions

By Julian D. W. Phillips

http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/man_ray_table.cfm?pid=9000

China is in the midst of a ‘State visit’ to the U.S. but this time China will get a state banquet. This implies a changed attitude to China by the U.S. It is clear to all today that there is unlikely to be a real confrontation between the two nations anymore. If there were to be a war between the two it is most unlikely to be an economic/financial one, not a military one. China is racing to be the number one economic world power and the U.S. is retreating from that position, slowly but surely. Each day, the power of the U.S. to dominate or even influence China falls slightly. Each day the power of China to influence and eventually dominate the global economy grows. At this moment in time China owns around half of U.S. Treasuries. They are already in a position to hurt the U.S. very badly, should they want to. But it is not in the interests of China to do that. China is empire-building and doesn’t want to be distracted from that. They appear to be on a winning road already. China’s is on the rising road and will soon pass the U.S. going the other way.

The reality of China and the U.S.

Last week we published an article on the advent of the Yuan as a global reserve currency. We believe this event is the most significant event to appear on the global monetary scene. It overshadows the Eurozone debt problems because it will change the monetary world significantly. We don’t believe for one second that the euro will collapse. The euro will receive considerable investment from China overtime at a time when it is needed most. China realizes that as an alternative to the U.S. dollar, the euro is needed in the global monetary system. By investing in the world’s two most powerful trading blocs, China is gaining a foothold that may well swing the [financial] balance of power towards itself, in time. Neither of these two blocs will be able to do without China’s investments shortly. Such dependence protects China as much as it weakens the Eurozone and the U.S.

As to the threat of military action from either side, we believe that China will not even move towards a confrontation. Tacit support for South Korea and a withdrawal of support for North Korea against a considerable softening of U.S. support for Taiwan may well be discussed in the visit of China to the U.S. Any confrontational moves may well be softened by the use of the United Nations as a mediator. The battle for power will be limited to the international trade and monetary scenes, we believe.

Will the Yuan appreciate? Senior U.S. Senators are again threatening to legislate against China’s ‘management’ of the yuan. By now most of us see this as a display of testosterone and unlikely to sway China in the least. Chinese wages have to move to the same level as those of the U.S. [whether by falling wages in the U.S. or rising wages in China] before international trade is on a level playing field. A change in the exchange rate of the yuan to the dollar is not likely to dent China’s global trade competitiveness one iota. China has made it clear there will be no change in its stance. As we pointed out in our last article we expect to see a sufficient quantity of Yuan sent into world markets from China to hold it steady or weaken in a ‘free float’. It is part of a very large global strategy unfolding now. To those who doubt this, ask yourself, “If Chinese exporters price their goods in the yuan or even in the other global currencies, what will happen to the dollar?”

How will the Yuan affect Gold For a number of years now, China has been developing its gold market. Huge precious metals warehouses are now situated in Hong Kong next to its very efficient Airport there. Recently China expanded the number of gold importers permitted to import gold to China. China’s banks have developed gold distribution centers throughout the major cities of China. The Chinese public can see the benefits of owning gold by the price rises it has seen in the gold price over those years. The government itself is accumulating its own local gold production as well as encouraging its citizens to buy gold. If there was any intention of re-valuing the yuan, then the Chinese public could well see this as a betrayal of investors by the government. No, we have no doubt that we will not see a rising yuan. We have stood by this forecast for the last two years, in the face of foreign pressure on the yuan to rise. Instead, we continue to expect the gold price to perform, in the yuan, much as it does in the U.S. dollar now. For that reason and because of the ongoing development of China and the growth of a huge middle class in China, for the foreseeable future, we see a steady growth in the rise of gold investments in China.


William J. Murphy III is the Chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com. A graduate of the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University in 1968, he went to become a starting wide receiver with the Boston Patriots of the American Football League. Mr. Murphy, who now resides in Dallas, Texas, spent much of his business career in the Futures Industry with such firms as Drexel Burnham and Shearson Hayden Stone. Today, he writes gold market commentary for his financial web site that features the precious metals and contrarian economic analysis.

Copyright 1999 – 2011 LeMetropoleCafe.com
All Rights Reserved

There Is No Business Like The Bond Business

January 19th, 2011 by

There Is No Business Like Bond Business

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 – by  Dr. Antal Fekete

Dr. Antal Fekete

Front-Running the Fed in the Treasury Market

For some nine years I have been predicting that the economy is going to a recession morphing into a depression, using a purely theoretical argument. The essence of my argument is that the open market operations of the Fed cause a protracted decline in interest rates which is responsible for the hard-to-detect capital destruction affecting the financial sector no less than the productive sector. The immediate cause of the depression is the destruction of capital. The ultimate cause is the monetary policy of open market operations. The chain of causation is as follows.

(1) Open market operations (in effect, net purchases of T-bills) by the Fed are predictable. They invite bond speculators to take risk-free profits offered by this fact of predictability.

(2) Bond speculators buy the long-dated Treasurys and sell the short-dated ones, to pocket the difference in yields. These straddles represent borrowing short and lending long. As such, they are inherently risky. However, Quantitative Easing takes the risk out by making the odds, that the normal yield curve will invert, negligible.

(3) The bond speculator faces the problem of having to roll forward the fast-expiring short leg of his straddle by selling T-bills. The extraordinary funding and refunding requirements the Treasury is facing, and the extraordinary pressure on the Fed to increase the money supply combine to make it ultra-easy for the bond speculator to move both the short and the long leg of his straddles as he sees fit.

(4) The upshot is that interest rates keep falling along the entire yield curve. Regardless how many long-dated issues the Treasury offers, bond speculators snap them up even before the ink is dry on them.

Here we have the solution to the Greenspan-conundrum: the sky is the limit to the bond speculators' appetite for Treasury paper. They are all right as long as they can sell T-bills against them. But as the sky is the limit to the Fed's appetite for T-bills, both flanks of the speculators are secure.

In my other writings I have explained how a prolonged fall in interest rates along the yield curve brings about depression through the indiscriminate destruction of capital in the productive as well as financial sector.

There is a vicious spiral: the more currency the Fed creates, the more risk-free profits bond speculators will reap, contributing to a further fall of interest rates.

This outcome is the exact opposite of the one predicted by monetarism. The latter predicts that the new money created by the Fed will flow to the commodity market bidding up prices there, to nip depression in the bud. Bernanke & Co. fully expects this to happen. This is not what is happening, however. The new money refuses to flow uphill to the commodity market. It flows downhill to the bond market where the fun is. Why take risks in the commodity market, the speculators ask, when you can gamble risk free in the bond market? So grab the money, buy more bonds and sell an equal amount of bills. As a consequence of bullish bond speculation interest rates fall, prices fall, employment falls, firms fall. The squeeze is on, bankrupting the entire economy.

Official Check-Kiting

Some might object that the Fed could short-circuit the process and undercut the bond speculators' lucrative business. All it has to do is to buy the short-dated paper directly from the Treasury. Inverting the yield curve will shake off the parasites. My answer is that there is no danger of this happening. The Treasury and the Fed know that bond-vigilantes watch what they are doing like a hawk. Any hanky-panky of direct sales of T-bills by the Treasury to the Fed would make them cry "foul play!" As indeed it would be: direct sale of Treasury paper to the Fed would degrade the dollar from irredeemable currency to fiat currency. There is a subtle difference, realized only by the few.

Fiat currency is worse. Its arbitrary augmenting is decided behind closed doors. It does not need the endorsement of the open market. Fiat currencies have a short life-span as they readily succumb to the sudden-death syndrome. Irredeemable currencies are different from fiat in that they are created openly, using collateral purchased in the open market. They have a more respectable life-span. As long as the official check-kiting conspiracy between the Treasury and the Fed remains hidden from the general public, irredeemable currency may even prosper. Direct sale of T-bills by the Treasury to the Fed would tear down the curtain that hides the fact of check-kiting.

The mechanism of check-kiting is as follows. The Treasury issues debt which it has neither the intention nor the means ever to repay. This debt is used as "backing" for Federal Reserve notes and deposits, which the Fed has neither the intention nor the means ever to redeem. When the Treasury debt matures, it is paid in Federal Reserve credit issued on the collateral security of new Treasury debt. When Federal Reserve credit is presented for redemption, the Fed offers interest-bearing Treasury debt in exchange. This is a shell game and it exhausts the definition of check-kiting. Neither the Treasury debt, nor the Federal Reserve credit is issued in good faith. Neither is redeemable any more than Charles Ponzi's tickets were. They are both issued in order to mesmerize a gullible public, much the same way as Ponzi did.

Treasury and Fed officials know their history. They are familiar with the fate of the assignat, the mandat, the Reichsmark, not to mention the Continental. They know that no fiat money ever survived "the slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune". Their only hope is that the fate of the irredeemable dollar, as predicted by Friedman, would be different. They would not embark upon an adventure in monetary policy involving direct sales of T-bills by the Treasury to the Fed. If they did, surely this would be the end of their experiment. Foreigners as well as Americans would start dumping the dollar unceremoniously, and buy anything they can lay their hands on. This is variously known as flight into real goods, Flucht in die Sachwerte, crack-up boom, Katastrophenhausse. I purposely avoid using the term hyperinflation as it connotes with the Quantity Theory of Money, which is not really a theory. It is a linear model trying to explain non-linear phenomena.

Falsecarding by the Fed

There is also a second method by means of which bond speculators are making risk-free profits. They "front-run" the Fed in the bill market. This means that, through inside information or otherwise, they divine when the Fed has to answer "nature's call" and must make the next trip to the open market in order to buy the collateral without which it cannot issue more money.

Bond speculators forestall the Fed by purchasing the bills beforehand, thus driving up the price. Then they turn around and dump the paper into the lap of the Fed at the enhanced price, making a risk-free profit. This process is called "scalping", after the kindred activities of small-time speculators in tickets for the World Series and other popular sporting events.

The objection that the Fed knows how to throw bond speculators off scent by various stratagems – for example, through falsecarding, say, by selling when speculators would expect it to buy – can be safely dismissed. There is no question that every year the Fed is a big buyer of bills on a net basis. If it sells, it has to buy that much more later on. Fiddling means that the Fed may miss its target. Falsecarding may backfire.

The speculators are a smart lot, thanks to "natural selection" culling the rank and file. They risk their own capital, which they stand to lose if they place the wrong bet. Once their capital is gone they are out, and smarter guys will take over. Hired hands at the Fed are no match for them as far as brightness and adroitness is concerned. The latter work for salaries. If they make the wrong bet, losses will be replenished by dipping into the public purse. Think of the losses the Bank of England suffered at the hand of a lonely bond speculator, one George Soros. The British public was forced to swallow the loss, and Soros was allowed to run with the loot and boast in his book that he has busted the Bank of England single-handedly. Recently Soros said in Davos that he is bearish on gold. In his opinion gold is in a bubble. Of course. He knows that he couldn't bust the Bank of England again, once it is back on the gold standard!

Cheating in Las Vegas

My voice has remained a cry in the wilderness. Nobody paid attention to the mumblings of this armchair economist.

My idle theorizing got an unexpected boost from the website Jesse's Café Américain. On January 22, 2010, Jesse posted a story with the title Front-Running the Fed in the Treasury Market from which the following quotation is taken:

Attached is some information from a reader. I cannot assess its validity, not being in the bond trading business. But it does sound like someone has tapped into the Fed's buying plans to monetize the public debt and is front-running those purchases, essentially ‘stealing' money from the public. It's what they call a ‘sure thing'. To try and figure out who might be doing it, I would look for some big player who is showing extraordinary returns on their trading, with consistent profit that is not statistically ‘normal', but is consistently ‘too good'. The problem with cheaters is that they sometimes get greedy and call attention to themselves. In Las Vegas the bigger cheats at the casino were often taken to the desert for further questioning and final disposal. On Wall Street they are more arrogant and persistent, defying resolution with that ultimate defiance, "We'll just have to figure out other ways to cheat, and come back again".

Time for a trip to the desert?

Here are my reader's observations from the bond market.

"I used to work for a BB on a prop desk until the financial crisis took hold and they fired the less senior guys. I now trade US Treasurys for a small prop firm in xxxxx, to scalp basis trades in most on-the-run securities. Occasionally, I will also take position in the repo markets for off-the-runs if I see something ‘mispriced'. Your recent article piqued my interest because we, too, have noticed ‘shenanigans' of a sort in the Quantitative Easing program involving US Treasurys.

"What we have noticed, especially in smaller issues like the 7 Year Cash, is that before a Fed buy-back would be announced, the price would pop significantly as if buyers would run through all the offers on the two major electronic exchanges (BGC Espeed and ICAP Broker Tec). This has occurred more than several times as the 7 Year Cash would be overvalued both by its BNOC, by as much as 20-30 ticks, as well as by its value relative to similar off-the-runs. These buyers would lift every offer they could, driving the price substantially above its ‘value', sometimes for as long as a week at a time. After this buying occurred, the Fed would announce the purchase of that security, sometimes a handle above its approximate value. This ‘luck' has occurred not just in the on-the-run 7 Year sector, but also in the 30 Year Cash, 3 Year Cash, and in several other off-the-runs. Again, it was especially prevalent in the less liquid Treasury products. Often the ‘appetite' for these securities would begin two weeks before the official Fed announcement. The buying was well-orchestrated and done in such a way as to throw it out of kilter with the like cash Treasurys and the CME Ten Year Contract. If you examine the charts of some of the selected buy-backs before the official announcement, you will see a similar occurrence.

"While I haven't broken this down into a paper to prove it (and I see nothing positive coming out of contacting the ESS-EEE-SFE about this issue), I can assure you that it was occurring on a consistent basis across the entire curve. A certain issue would be bid up substantially above market value (as determined by several metrics), only to be gobbled up later by the Fed at an unreasonably high price. These players must have substantial pockets as we, the small guys (but with a decent capital base) would take the other side of what seemed to be an obvious fade. While this did not occur in every issue of the Quantitative Easing program, it occurred often enough to be obvious to any knowledgeable observer.

While I am not sure that this can be attributed to a purposeful Fed policy or someone at the Fed talking to his pals, I am certain that it transpired."

Congenital Disease of the Monetary System

The anonymous correspondent of Jesse is looking for an answer in the wrong direction. Cheating is not necessarily involved. What he has observed need not be a purposeful, if veiled, Fed policy, nor is it necessarily someone at the Fed tipping off his brother-in-law at a brokerage house (however valuable the tip may be).

What we face here is a congenital disease of the irredeemable dollar. Open-market operations is the tool for the purpose of increasing the money supply through monetizing government debt as needed. It should be recalled that open-market operations by the Fed were illegal according to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The original Act looked at the monetization of government debt as ananathema. Illegal open-market operations started in the early 1920's. They were legalized ex post facto in 1935 by an amendment to the Act, after the gold standard was destroyed by the proclamation of president Roosevelt in 1933. Those who sponsored the amendment were ignorant of what effect open market operations would have on bond speculation. Economists in and out of government and academia were equally ignorant. The financial press also failed to criticize the hare-brained scheme of open market operations making, as it did, profits from bond speculation risk free.

There is no need to look for a conspiracy in the bond market. It is quite possible that a large number of smart speculators, acting spontaneously and independently of one another, have come to realize that there is a bonanza, perfectly legal, in ripping off the public purse. Of course, they kept their own counsel.

If anybody is responsible for this colossal blunder of economics releasing the genie of risk-free speculation out of the bottle, the names that come to mind are those of Keynes and Friedman, resp. They invented, resp., ‘improved', the system of floating exchange rates assuming a goldless currency that has to be arbitrarily augmented from time-to-time through the monetization of government debt (that, incidentally, proliferated profusely after the politicians deliberately unbalanced the budget upon the explicit advice of Keynes). The rest, as they say, is history.

As long as budget deficits were ‘modest', the activity of speculators making risk-free profits in the bond market escaped public attention. With the advent of ‘Quantitative Easing' and mega-deficits, everybody sitting at a bond-trading desk can see it. The figures literally jump off the screen, as explained by Jesse's blog.

Recruiting a Corps of Shills

To be fair to Jesse's anonymous correspondent I must admit that his conjecture, that in risk-free bond speculation we may be looking at deliberate Fed policy, is plausible. It is not impossible that the rot in the U.S. monetary system has already spread so far that in a truly free and unrigged bond market no bidders would turn up. Time is long since past when Treasurys were eagerly sought after by the most conservative segment of the investing public, such as guardians of widows and orphans, trust funds, eleemosynary institutions. Typically, they held the bonds to maturity. Treasurys, second only to gold, were the most trusted instruments of wealth-preservation.

Under the regime of the irredeemable dollar no investor in his right mind would buy a Treasury bond and hold it till maturity. Treasurys lose value as ice melts in the sunshine. They have become a plaything in the hands of speculators for their value in turning a fast buck. Under the gold standard there was no bond speculation, just as there was no foreign exchange speculation. Interest rates were stable and so were bond prices. Speculators would shun bonds. Of course, all this changed when president Nixon defaulted on the short-term gold obligation of the Treasury to foreigners in 1971, and gold was finally removed from the international monetary system at the behest of the U.S. government.

For a decade speculators were happy with the trading profits they could make in the bond market. But as the monetary system kept deteriorating, they started abandoning bonds, transferring their activities to the commodity market. By 1981 demand for bonds practically evaporated. As this spelled the end of the regime of the irredeemable dollar, the Fed had to do something to prop up the bond market by enticing bond speculators back.

Thus, then, it is quite possible that a decision was made at the highest level to offer the enticement of risk-free profits to bond speculators. It certainly cannot be denied that bond speculators have been making obscene profits in the course of the 30-year bull market in bonds that is still ongoing. These profits are unprecedented in the history of speculation, both on account of their magnitude and their regularity. They were made at the expense of productive enterprise, the capital of which has been surreptitiously siphoned off by the falling interest-rate structure.

Another way of describing this scenario (assuming it is correct) is that in 1981 the Fed, unknown to the public, decided to recruit a corps of shills to prop up a moribund bond market. The shills hired by the casinos of Las Vegas bet big and win big at the gaming tables in full view of the gamblers who are unaware that they are being treated to a show. The sight of these big payoffs will then perk up the gambling spirit of a lethargic clientele.

The shills recruited by the Fed are the bond speculators, and their remuneration is in the form of risk-free profits they are allowed to make (and keep). The scheme was a roaring success. Not only did it save the bond market from extinction; it also saved the dollar from ignominy, and was instrumental in making possible a whole string of bubbles, each bigger than the previous one.

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions

The problem is far more serious than it may at first appear. Risk-free speculation is like a computer-virus that has no antidote and threatens to wipe out the Internet. It short-circuits normal economic processes and gobbles up the world economy.

I would welcome a public debate of my thesis that risk-free bond speculation suppresses the rate of interest and destroys capital in the process. I have challenged neo-classical economists who still consider the open-market operations of the Fed as a ‘refined tool to manage the national economy'. I want them, instead, to see in open-market operations the cancer of the economy responsible for the withering of the world's prosperity. So far my challenge has fallen upon deaf ears.

Here is the problem. The prevailing orthodoxy is the unholy alliance between Keynesianism and monetarism inspired by Friedman (defying the pretence that these two are antagonistic theories). The idea that an artificial increase in the money supply must raise commodity prices dies hard. But as my theory suggests, and as events have repeatedly shown (first during the Great Depression of the 1930's, and again, during the present crisis), the presence of risk-free speculation renders the increase in the money supply counter-productive. It causes prices to fall rather than rise.

Giving them the toy of risk-free profits makes speculators vacate the commodity market where risks are too high. They will then congregate in the bond market where risks are non-existent. The speculator who in the absence of risk-free profits might resist falling prices in the commodity market, will decline the honor of pushing the Keynesian agenda if given the choice of risk-free profits in bonds. This is basic human reaction that cannot be criticized, still less rectified, by official brow-beating. Keynesians should have thought about the consequences of their master-plan more thoroughly before they put open-market operations into effect.

The intentions of policy-makers at the Fed are praiseworthy. They want to prevent prices and employment from collapsing. But they are prisoners of their orthodoxy, and their good intentions make them steer the economy to the road to hell. A catastrophe is confronting the Titanic, but the captain, just confirmed in his position in spite of a most serious public challenge, will not change his course.

A head-on collision with the iceberg straight ahead, otherwise known as the debt-tower, now appears inevitable.


Calendar of Events

Seminar at the Martineum Academy, Szombathely, Hungary, March 25-29, 2010.

Is the Global Financial Crisis Over?

Sponsored by the Gold Standard Institute, with the participation of Sandeep Jaitly, Peter van Coppenolle, Rudy Fritsch, Darryl Schoon, Nathan Narusis, Professor Fekete, and others. Among other topics, there will be a presentation of the latest research on the gold basis, the world's pension woes, and an exclusive business idea turning the ridiculously undervalued "legal tender gold coins" to your advantage. For further details, see: www.professorfekete.com.

 

Stupid Wager or Clever Prestidigitation?

January 18th, 2011 by

 

The Daily Bell

 

Stupid Wager or Clever Prestidigitation?

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 – by  Dr. Antal Fekete

Dr. Antal Fekete

"Heads – you win; tails – I lose." Such is the message the Fed sends to bond speculators. But why would the Fed offer such a stupid wager? Read on.

The Fed is trying to bribe bond speculators with risk-free profits. That's how the Treasury/Fed check-kiting conspiracy makes sure that there will always be plenty of buyers for government debt, regardless of the size of offering.

Ten years ago I started writing about my theory that, wittingly or unwittingly, the Fed has become the quartermaster general of the coming deflation and depression. I offered a logical, closely argued reasoning for this thesis. My argument had to do with the contention that the open market operations of the Fed make bond speculation risk-free, which explains the perpetual bull market in bonds. Bond speculators, knowing that the Fed must needs buy bonds in order to keep the money supply growing, front-run (or, to use the old-fashioned term: pre-empt) the Fed's open market operations. They buy the bonds beforehand, and pocket risk-free profits when they sell them to the Fed. Speculators will allow the bond price to fall only so much. Then they show up as buyers for another ride of the escalator upstairs.

Incidentally, my theory also gives the coup-de-grâce to Keynesian and Friedmanite economics. Keynes, and later Friedman, advised governments to discard the gold standard thus destabilizing foreign exchange. That would give them free hand to pursue monetary policy — euphemism for the license to engineer unlimited depreciation of the currency. Scarcely did they consider that their scheme was to back-fire. They were shooting for inflation only to bag deflation. They wanted rising prices; instead, they got falling prices.

A falling interest-rate structure engenders a falling price-level structure. It is most destructive to the economy. It devastates existing capital and blocks the accumulation of new capital. The 30-year old regime of falling rates destroyed the once flourishing American industry forcing it to flee the country. There is no chance to accumulate new capital as long as interest rates keep falling. Continuation of this trend will cause excruciating pain to those producers who remain. They will not be able to compete with newcomers who carry a much smaller burden, thanks to their lower cost of capital. The squeeze of the old-guard producers will show up in the falling price level. The "grapes of wrath" — the seeds of which were planted by Keynes and Friedman — will come to full maturity when hoards of angry and hungry unemployed people will roam from city to city and country to country.

It is not the Fed who is in the driver's seat. It is the bond speculator. The Great Depression was not due to low demand for goods, as argued by Keynes. It was due to high demand for bonds, courtesy of speculators who understood the dynamics of the bond market better than policymakers did. The GFC is just a repeat performance.

Check-kiting is the name for the conspiracy, typically between two banks, to tap the float (the mass of checks in the process of clearing). The conspiring banks send one another third-party checks that lack any backing whatsoever. They cover the liability of one un-backed check by crediting the other, ad infinitum. It is similar to wildcat banking in Scotland in the 17th century, when the coach hired by the banks carrying gold was front-running the coach carrying bank inspectors from one bank to the next. Small wonder the inspectors found the gold reserve of every bank on their beat in good shape. Check-kiting is a crime to defraud the public dealt with by the Criminal Code. Except, that is, when practiced by the Treasury and the Fed, in which case it is called monetary policy.

Let us bypass the question on what valid grounds do the Treasury and the Fed issue liabilities which they have neither the inclination nor the means to honor. The practice boils down to clever prestidigitation: to mislead the public into believing that the Emperor does have clothes. He is cheered on by an enthusiastic crowd of bond speculators praising the garment. Until… until… a naughty little boy starts howling: "Gee whiz, Dad, the Emperor is stark naked!"

Suppose the Fed wants inflation and thinks that the best way to go about it is to keep buying bonds ad nauseam and call the practice by the acronym QE-X. The belief that pumping up the money supply through unlimited bond purchases by the central bank will bring about rising prices is a tragic mistake. A higher price level will never be achieved in this way. Bond speculators will have a field day. They would just buy the bonds in any amount. A vicious spiral of falling interest rates is engaged that, like the black hole of zero gravitation, will suck in and gobble up the world economy. Keynes and Friedman were hoping for inflation they could control; instead they got deflation they could not. They cut the tragic figure of the Sorcerer's Apprentice who stole the Master's password to turn on the spigots, but he has forgotten to steal the other password to turn them off when enough is enough.

Having been a lonely voice crying in the wilderness for ten years, I am still in a minority of one. Most economists expect Fed action to cause inflation (according to some, hyperinflation). The few who dare mention the d-words, deflation and depression, hasten to add that, of course, this would follow hyperinflation, not precede it. Same as in Zimbabwe. Reports from that unhappy country say that it has 90% unemployment after the worst hyperinflation on record.

I am the only one saying that the U.S. is not Zimbabwe, and for the U.S. the forecast is deflation first, hyperinflation afterwards — at least until the prestidigitation in the bond market is exposed.

Seldom do I get a tail-wind in the form of newspaper reports confirming that there is, after all, such a thing as front-running the Fed's open market operations, that bond speculators do indeed buy the bonds only to dump them in the lap of the Fed at a hefty premium. I have certainly never ever expected the New York Times to provide that tail-wind. Well, on January 10, 2011, that bastion of central planning published an article from the pen of Graham Bowley. It quotes Josh Frost who is in charge of buying hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasuries for the Fed: "We are looking to get the best price we can for the taxpayer". Then the article goes on to quote an authority on bond trading, Louis V. Crandall, chief economist at the research firm Wrightson ICAP, who flatly contradicts Frost: a buyer of $100 billion a month is always going to pay the worst (highest) price. "You can't be a known buyer of $100 billion a month and get a good price."

In my papers I have commiserated with traders of the Fed facing, as they are, hungry lions in the arena bare-handed. The latter are the bond speculators who, unlike the former, are not working for wages. They work for profits. (If the profits happen to be risk free, so much the better.) True, the loss the Fed's traders habitually make is not their loss. They are passed on to the taxpayers with a shrug. It is the taxpayers' blood that is spilled so valiantly.

This reminds me of the object-lesson offered by George Soros. He made mincemeat of the traders of the Bank of England some years ago who were trying to fend off his serial attacks to sell the British pound short. Soros took the traders to the cleaners and, to rub it in, he bragged about it in his book. No need to feel sorry for the forex traders of the Bag Lady of Threadneedle Street. It was not their blood anyway that was flowing so abundantly. It was the blood of the British taxpayers.

I didn't know the identity of the Fed's traders facing the hungry lions. Now I do, thanks to the New York Times. They are babes in Toyland. All three of them are in their 20's. Their only prior experience in trading comes from playing Monopoly. One of them is still a student at NYU. According to the story in the NYT, "most days" they talk to the big banks. How is that for guarding against conflict of interest? Their supervisor, Josh Frost lives in Brooklyn and every morning he takes the subway to commute to work. As one may figure, not for too long. Wonder how one gets such a rags-to-riches job at the Fed? Well, take the example of Josh Frost's boss, Bryan P. Sack, age 40. In 2004 he co-authored a paper with Ben Bernanke, the future chairman of the Fed and another economist about "unconventional measures for stimulating the economy in extraordinary times" — by buying Treasuries in batches of hundreds of billions of dollars. "We didn't know then that some day the Fed would be putting it to test" — Brian is quoted as saying.

The best part of it all is that the line between success and failure is hopelessly blurred. If the rate of interest goes down in consequence of Fed action, then: "hooray, we're dead on with targeting inflation. And that's good news". If, on the other hand, the rate of interest goes up, then: "hooray, the economy is turning around. Rates have risen for the very reason we were hoping for: investors are more optimistic about the recovery. It is a good sign."

The fact that in the meantime the economy is wiped out, gets lost in the noise of loud self-congratulation.


References

The Federal Reserve, the Quartermaster General of Deflation, A. E. Fekete

There Is No Business Like Bond Business, A. E. Fekete, www.professorfekete.com, January, 2010

Front/Running the Fed in the Treasurys Market
www.jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
, January, 2010

The Fed`s QE2 Traders, Buying Bonds by the Billions, Graham Bowley, The New York Times, January 10, 2011

Meet the Fed's POMO Desk… by Tyler Durden, www.zerohedge.com, January 10, 2011

 

 

 

 

Snitching on your neighbor will keep us all safe!

January 18th, 2011 by

The PPJ Gazette

 

Snitching on your neighbor will keep us all safe!

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________________

This has nothing to do with security, crimes or anything else of that nature.  It is a snitch set up.  This is community training.  This is conditioning to get people comfortable with the idea of reporting on their neighbors; a concept repugnant to most free societies, but one very common to police states.

________________________________________________

Homeland Security, that bastion of police state warriors has set up housekeeping in the once great state of Oklahoma.  Their new website “Red Dirt Ready” would be more aptly titled “Sniffin’ Dirt”.  The site, all plumped up with militant looking people, some who are, I suppose, supposed to represent first responders and medical personnel, encourages Oklahoman’s to be ready for an emergency!  Why!  You can even win yourself an emergency survival kit!  Oh!  And you can snitch on your neighbors too! 

In the upper right hand corner of the header is a “Report Activity” button.  I just had to check it out.  I quickly deduced that native Oklahomans must be somewhat dimwitted or at least Homeland Security and the FBI think they are. 

The page is brief: 

 RED DIRT READY (link)

If you perceive an immediate threat to yourself or to public safety, please dial 911 immediately 

To report suspicious activity, please contact your local police department or FBI at (405) 290-7770 in Oklahoma City and (918) 664-3300 in Tulsa. 

For more information, please read the following:

How to Identify Suspicious Activity 

What to Do if You Spot Suspicious Activit 

Examples of Suspicious Activity 

Information provided in part by  NationalTerrorAlert.com

______________________________________

Of course I couldn’t stop here.  I just had to see how to identify suspicious activity.  I had to because, well….we are all felons in the police state and lord knows I wouldn’t want to get on one of those watch lists with those 3 million or so other people who dared to speak out and who are now targeted as a “suspected domestic terrorist” by 17 or so intelligence agencies who spend their time conducting costly and unnecessary surveillance on American citizens who refuse to tow the “party” line.  Right comrade?

Identifying Suspicious Activity

Identifying suspicious activity is not a difficult science. Rely on your judgment. Your suspicion of a threat could be confirmed with only one incident or it could take a series of incidents. Your suspicions will need to be based on: Experience, Judgment and Common Sense.  (Obviously the people of Oklahoma have been deemed not to have any of these qualities)

To assist in recognizing and reporting suspicious activity, consider the following guidelines to help make an informed decision. 

Under this subtitle was the usual know your neighbor stuff, and report crimes if you see them occurring.  What got my attention was this little ditty:

  • Controversial issues being debated.

_______________________________________

Now what could that mean?  Why would the discussion of controversial issues be viewed as a threat by Homeland Security and the FBI and your local police department?  I believe it means if you hear anyone discussing non-government approved topics that include non-government approved ideas, information or comments that are not approved in an ideal police state…you need to report that; or you need to be reported. 

Oh yeah….in case of a flood, fire or other disaster, give them a buzz.  They’ll see if they can help.

Since our police departments have been militarized and are now all under control of Homeland Security, and since their purpose is no longer to protect and serve but rather, to assault and attack whenever the opportunity arises, this could present a clear and present danger to the public at large.  I think we should all report them, after all, this is very suspicious activity if you ask me.

I would expand on Oklahoma’s new “Dirt Sniffin’” site.  But you get the drift.  This has nothing to do with security, crimes or anything else of that nature.  It is a snitch set up.  This is community training.  This is conditioning to get people comfortable with the idea of reporting on their neighbors; a concept repugnant to most free societies, but one very common to police states.

I have no doubt these sites will appear in each and every state especially in consideration of the new kazillion square foot spy center they are building in Utah.  Believe it or not, some people actually think that center is going to be used to track terrorists from “over there”.  It is:  over there in Arizona, over there in Texas, over there in Nevada, up there in Missouri, out there in Maine…..any place American citizens reside in the geographical United States.  What most people fail to grasp is, our government is in fear of us; it is the people of the US that our own government views as a threat.   

As the noose on the police state tightens, we will see more snitch and report opportunities.  No doubt, staged “events” will occur to cement in the public’s mind that only YOU can prevent another terrorist attack.  Just pick up that phone and drop that dime!  Mad at your neighbor?  Hey! Just make up some story and call Homeland Security.  That’ll show’em. 

As a young girl, it never once occurred to me that I would ever see the day in this country when our own government would actively recruit neighborhood snitches to report on their neighbors or friends or even family members.  I honestly believe there are few among us who would not report a crime, or who would not come forward if we actually did hear something that needed to be reported to the authorities.  As a middle-aged woman, one who has watched in disbelief as everything we thought we represented is taken from us, I have no illusions.  We are being led into the police state where even our thoughts or conversations can get us killed or imprisoned for life. 

Personally, I think we should start constructing citizen surveillance centers where we can report the suspicious activity of government agents and agencies.  After all, if we are the enemy, and by all standards it appears we are, we need to know who these people are and who they work for as well as what they are doing.

We are under attack.  It isn’t someone from “over there; it isn’t some nameless, unidentifiable, untraceable and undefined enemy.  We see these people on the news, in the papers and hear them on the radio.  We elected many of them and saw many others simply appointed to some position they were most likely not qualified to hold.  These people are the faces and voices of the police state; have they now become our enemy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Utah Spy Center

“Red Dirt Ready” Oklahoma Snitch Center

http://www.ok.gov/reddirtready/REPORT_ACTIVITY/Identify/

 

The Wanta Chronicles

January 15th, 2011 by

OLDDODS COMMENTS

Although I have been collecting notes on this subject for several months now, I could not find enough to construct a comprehensible essay, as I found them in bits and pieces interspersed with emails from Mr. Wanta himself. Rather than take credit for anything I adamantlyWARN the READERthat you may soil yourself as you digest this story and suddenly thousands of events you have been aware of are now clear and comprehensible. I pray this story will be read around the world, and the scumbags  in DC start running for cover. 

GOD BLESS THE USA


Subject: The Wanta Chronicles

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:13:53 -0600

 The Wanta Chronicles

 

Friday, September 4, 2009

From the January 2007 Idaho Observer:

Following the money backwards leads to President Reagan, Russian rubles and Ambassador Leo Wanta. Ambassador Leo Wanta is the lawful "principle" and "trustor" of funds stashed in accounts all over the world.

Editor’s note: The story of how Ambassador Leo Wanta was commissioned by President Reagan to make $trillions for the American people in shrewd (but legal) currency trading that concentrated on buying Russian rubles at a discount to destabilize the Soviet economy surfaced in 1992. The Wanta story was recently revived on the Investigative Journal by Greg Syzmanski through interviews with Ambassador Wanta broadcast on the Republic Broadcast Network. As it turns out, British financial news publisher Christopher Story has published the documents in evidence giving credence to what is arguably the most important story in recent memory. As you will ! see, several poorly-reported incidents during the 90s helped to bury the Wanta story as a tall-tale. As events unfold and independent researchers put the pieces together, Ambassador Wanta is emerging as a real man whose activities produced $trillions that are stashed away in real banks and invested in real properties. If this story is true—and the evidence is becoming unavoidably compelling—then it will not be long before all the world will know.

By Don Nicoloff

While many Americans argue about a variety of current scandals in federal, state, and local governments throughout the United States, the media has remained suspiciously silent about them. Contrary to the myriad of facts and evidence of government complicity or wrongdoing that independent investigators have been steadily uncovering in their analyses of the "attacks" on the World Trade Center; the "bombing" of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; the sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge; the facts b! ehind the shoot-out at the Rayburn Senate Office Building/parking garage in May, 2006; the virtual security collapse and mass invasion by illegal aliens along U.S. Borders; the spraying of our skies, crops, and water resources with chemtrails; the numerous bank, investment, securities frauds and sex scandals among members of the Congress, the Senate and the Roman Catholic Church; the secret formation of a "North American Union" and its NAFTA "Super Highway"; the ill-conceived "War on Terror" and the phony "War on Drugs," the mainstream media has been complicit in conspiracies of silence.

In fact, the media has aided and abetted our "elected" lawbreakers in these coverups by endlessly spewing the "talking points" designed to create dissent, confusion and to ridicule or discredit those who demonstrate courage while exposing these despicable and treasonous acts.

Never before in our history has the erosion of Constitutional rights and civil liberties been occurring at such an accelerated pace. There is no denying that the age of Big ! Brother is now upon us, but those who are naive enough to believe the propaganda they are being spoon-fed on a daily basis are in complete denial that ours is no longer the land of the free. The mind control programs to maintain the illusion of freedom in the mass American mind have been in place for many years and are being tested and modified as needed.

For those who would argue that the media is "fair and balanced," one need only to perform a Google search on the Internet to learn that "Operation Mockingbird" was the government’s official declaration that the mainstream media will be controlled — at any cost. The $64,000 question is: "Exactly how much money will it take to control the mainstream media?" The answer: "Lots — billions, at the very least."

Enter Leo Wanta

Beginning in the early-1980s, President Ronald Reagan and a small group of his closest advisors initiated a plan to destabilize the Russian ruble. Reagan recruited h! is most-trusted intelligence agent Leo Emil Wanta to perform this delicate task. Wanta had served the U.S. intelligence community as a Treasury agent, in arms dealing and in other "sensitive" matters. He was chosen for this mission, not only for his loyalty to the president, but also for his unfailing honesty. In addition to his responsibilities in carrying out this covert financial coup against the former Soviet Union, Wanta was also instrumental in thwarting an attempted assassination of President Reagan "in the White House"—yet another event that went unreported by the media.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan was tumultuous, to say the least. Reagan’s administration survived several scandals and he, personally, survived several assassination attempts. Only one of these attempts, the shooting by John W. Hinkley, Jr., would be made public. That shooting was captured live on television and posed a particular problem for the media—there would be no video coverup of the events. Even the shooting of White House Press Secretary Jim Brady w! as broadcast, along with the apprehension of Hinkley.

In hindsight, a closer look at the 1981 attempted assassination of President Reagan smacks of a conspiracy. Not of Jodie Foster, but of a Montauk-style event. Was it possible that "those in the know" had other plans for our president? The jury who heard Hinkley’s case determined he was "not guilty by reason of insanity." It is quite plausible that Hinkley was a mind-control experiment, a la MK-Ultra. After all, how does one associate the love of a teen actress with the assassination of a U.S. president? Only those familiar with the Montauk experiments would suspect such an association would be the result of mind control programming.

What remained a part of the official media coverup of this failed assassination were numerous pertinent facts. Hinkley’s father, John, Sr. was a former oil-business associate and golfing buddy of George H.W. Bush. Bush was suspiciously absent during the event and, according to! accounts of various White House staffers, was resentful of Alexander Haig’s "I’m in control" proclamations. The evening of the assassination attempt, John Hinkley’s brother and his wife were "dinner guests" at the home of the Vice-President’s son, Neil Bush, of Silverado Savings and Loan fame. Coincidence?

President Reagan’s administration began auspiciously with the release of the 63 embassy hostages being held in Iran, an event which was orchestrated to embarrass a sitting president, Jimmy Carter, thus assuring a Republican march to the White House. The failed "secret rescue attempt" which resulted in crashed military helicopters in the desert before the event was successfully launched, may have been orchestrated as well.

In November, 1986, President Reagan admitted to Americans that arms were sold to Iran in the summer of 1985, but he insisted there was no relation to the above-mentioned hostage release. Israel played a part in no fewer than three deliveries of tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire command link-guided (! TOW) missiles to Iran, which subsequently resulted in the release of another hostage, Benjamin Weir. Without the release of some 29 other hostages, Israel withdrew from its original agreement with the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. implemented a second strategy, an operation headed by Lt. Col. Oliver North, to sell the arms directly to Iran—with a considerable markup—and then send the profits to Nicaragua, to covertly fund the Contra rebels who were fighting the communist Sandanistas in power.

It was also assumed that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking as part of the Iran-Contra affair, and many have since come forward to confirm those suspicions. Much has already been written by others about the validity of the War on Drugs. As we would soon come to find out, this was the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

PROMIS

In 1982, Inslaw, a Washington, D.C., computer software manufacturer, developed a program called "PROMIS." The program was to be! used by the U.S. Justice Department to track cases across the country and would be useful in organizing the department’s case files. One feature of PROMIS was its command-line structure, which permitted some 700,000 instructions. Although the program was designed to be used by the bankruptcy courts, it found its way into the NSA, the DIA, the CIA, the FBI, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Coincidentally, Inslaw sued for payment of the software which was stolen and then pirated. Inslaw sued the Justice Department and won a $6.8 million judgment, a verdict that remains in dispute.

When it was discovered that PROMIS could be used to track military movements and other sensitive data, the software fell into the hands of the Israeli intelligence community and the government of Iraq as well. This could explain the ban on of the sale of PC-486 processor technology to Iraq during the first Gulf War.

According to an article in The American Free Press by Mike Blair, "A Terrorist, the CIA, ‘Blue Death’ and the Inslaw Case", in 1! 986 a clandestine meeting took place at the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California. Present were several key figures: Ted Gunderson, former Supervisory Special Agent for the Los Angeles District of the FBI; Ralph Olberg, a "prominent, American businessman who worked at the Afghan desk of the State Department"; Michael Riconosciuto, "then a long-time weapons and explosives expert linked to the CIA" and "the Inslaw case" and "Tim Osman," the alias assigned to Osama bin Laden "without his beard," according to Orlin Grabbe, the newsman who first reported the story.

At the Hilton meeting, discussions centered on "the supply of U.S. Stinger II missiles and modified Red Chinese 107 mm rockets obtained through Olberg’s Norinco contacts in China," to be used by Afghan rebels against Soviet helicopters and other aircraft. Reports were to then be forwarded to the CIA as to the missiles’ effectiveness against the Soviet aircraft.

It was known that the computer softwar! e had also "fallen into the hands of the Israeli Mossad." The article described how the software had been used as a "backdoor entry" into intelligence computers. This meeting was also a precursor to the events of 9/11, indicating the existence of covert relationships between so-called "terrorist organizations" and the U.S. government prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Stirring the pot, thickening the plot

Enter Leo Emil Wanta, Ambassador from Somalia to Switzerland and Canada. With an initial investment of $150 billion, borrowed from the U.S. Treasury and, thus, the American people, Wanta purchased rubles from contacts in the Netherlands. According to Wanta, the ruble was valued at $1.20 on the international currency market at the time. By purchasing rubles in above-normal quantities, his company, AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., of Vienna, Austria and other locations, was able to acquire them far below the standard exchange rates. To boot, his company was trading with U.S. dollars and other currencies.

During several live ! radio interviews on Greg Szymanski’s "Investigative Journal" radio program in early 2006 on the Republic Broadcasting Network, Wanta described purchasing rubles at various prices ranging "from 18 to 23 cents on the dollar." AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., would then resell the rubles at higher rates to other investors in the financial markets. Dollars were converted into rubles, rubles into yen (or other currencies) and the process would be repeated, over and over again, until the Soviet banks could no longer bear the pressure of cashing in their own currency. According to Ambassador Wanta, "the accounts were distributed throughout secret offshore accounts and had doubled in value every two years."

It should be emphasized that the plan Ambassador Wanta designed was perfectly legal. The same strategy is employed everyday by investors throughout the world. Wanta’s plan differed though, in that his goal, at the bequest of President Reagan, was to cause a financial collapse o! f the Soviet Union. His repeated purchase of "discounted rubles" enabled him to profit with an advantage not available to others in the financial markets – but was and is still legal. The plan was carried out under Executive Order 12333 (EO 12333, UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES is a comprehensive executive order, easily found on the Internet, that was signed by President Reagan on December 4, 1981.)

Bush fingers the Wanta cookie jar

Eventually, Wanta’s AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., along with his other corporations, amassed a sum worth $27.5 trillion. Wanta emphasized that the initial $150 billion startup capital was repaid to the U.S. Treasury and that he intended for the profits to be returned to the American people, according to President Reagan’s orders. While in Hong Kong, Wanta and his Chinese business partner, Howe Kwong Kok, were approached by then President George H. W. Bush. According to Wanta, Bush, Sr., had demanded access to the funds that Wanta had accumulated. Wanta and his partner ref! used, citing that the funds "belonged to the U.S. Treasury and the American people." Wanta’s partner died of poisoning 10 days after this visit. Bush, former Director of the CIA and a former U.S. Ambassador to China, obviously maintained powerful connections there.

Unbeknownst to Ambassador Wanta, while he was in Switzerland, a plot was unfolding to circumvent his total authority, by presidential order, to safeguard and invest the $27.5 trillion fund he had accumulated through a series of financial maneuvers. The international financial community was well aware of the coup that had taken place, yet not a word had been reported by the worldwide mainstream media. A new president, William Jefferson Clinton, had taken office in 1992 and would soon learn about the financial coup and the efforts of his predecessor, George Herbert Walker Bush, to illegally divert the funds to offshore accounts for personal use.

Clinton fingers the Wanta cookie jar
Prior to Clinton’s arrival in Washington, D. C., it was no small secret that there were an unusually large number of people "in the know" who suddenly died of suspicious circumstances. Personal bodyguards, security personnel and even financial associates who had prior careers in the military or in law enforcement and had since worked for Clinton when he was the governor of Arkansas, had "car accidents" and committed "suicide" in ever-increasing numbers. These people knew too much about the drug deals and financial dealings at the Rose Law Firm where Hillary Clinton was a partner. Even two young boys who witnessed the Mena, Arkansas, drug shipments arriving by train were murdered, in order to protect these dark secrets. The dark secrets followed the Clintons to Washington, D.C.

Shortly after Bill Clinton took over the presidency in 1993, questions were raised by The New York Times about the Whitewater Development and Madison Guaranty loan scandals. The Clintons had invested in the project (at a "loss") and it was learned that the ! bank had used its influence to hand out political loans amounting to $3 million with deposits of only $300,000. This procedure is practiced by virtually every bank that loans money under the "authority" of the Federal Reserve System. Banks were permitted to loan up to 10 times their actual cash deposits, a practice approved by the Federal Reserve.

Note: Coincidentally, it is this "regulation" that makes it possible to "create money out of thin air." No actual exchange of money occurs between the Federal Reserve and the lending bank, though the loan transaction is recorded on paper as if there had been such an exchange. One can assume that the Fed receives its "cut" from the interest-bearing portion of the loan, as well as the principal portion, 90 percent, which has been financed from funds that actually never existed. Today, the "required" cash on hand is reported to be closer to two percent.

The Federal Reserve, a private corporation and not an actual govern! ment agency, ultimately receives interest on such loans—interest that is funneled into offshore accounts which provide profits for private, foreign banks.
When loan payments are in default or dire straits, the banks "repossess" the physical property, whether real estate, a building, house, business development, or any motor vehicle that has been financed through this illusory system. This confiscated property is resold, often at a discount, because the banks and the Fed are willing to "lose" any portion of the 90 percent which has been financed only on paper and not by any tangible means. The process is merely repeated again by the "new owner," until the banks determine that all loans have been "satisfied." The loan schemes devised under the authority of the Federal Reserve account for the false, inflationary valuation of real estate and the rapid depreciation of motor vehicles, are just two examples of our illusory economy. One can assume that all credit agencies operate under the same system.

The New York Times story had precipita! ted an investigation into Whitewater by the U.S. Justice Department—the same U.S. Justice Department which was complicit in the theft and piracy of the previously-referenced PROMIS software program created by Inslaw: The same U.S. Justice Department that had failed to pay a $6.8 million judgment in damages to Inslaw was now going to investigate a law firm, a bank that illegally loaned money to politicians, a real estate entity that was a "shell" corporation created by attorneys and a former governor of Arkansas who had become president of the United States.

To thicken the plot, former White House Deputy Counsel, Vince Foster submitted several delinquent tax returns for the Whitewater Development project in June, 1993. In July, 1993, Foster "committed suicide" in Fort Marcy Park in Virginia—so the "official" story goes. After a conflict of interest was determined in the appointment of Robert B. Fiske by Attorney General Janet Reno, Kenneth Starr was appointed by a p! anel of three judges to head the Whitewater investigation in 1994. There was even an investigation into the murder of Vince Foster, who had worked with the Rose Law Firm alongside Hillary Clinton. Although several improprieties by the Clintons were discovered, Foster’s (timely, untimely?) death was ruled a suicide and only James and Susan McDougal received jail time. James McDougal eventually succumbed to a "heart attack" while serving his prison sentence.

Contrary to the findings of the Starr investigation, one of Kenneth Starr’s lead investigators, Miguel Rodriguez, claimed there was a coverup of the forensic evidence discovered in the Foster murder. According to Rodriguez, evidence at the crime scene did not match the evidence contained in the "official report." Rodriguez is recorded on tape describing details of the coverup and his frustration with a corrupt legal system. At the conclusion of the Whitewater investigation, Rodriguez was "demoted" to a state job in California. Mr. Rodriguez, through the miracles of modern medicine, ! has recently become Miss Michelle Rodriguez.

Aside from the business association between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster, there were numerous references to a romantic relationship—an extramarital affair. Reports from Secret Service agents and White House staffers detailed accounts of this illicit relationship and others, which were by no means a secret to Washington insiders. The public is reminded of the many dalliances of our 42nd president and the crude manner in which his accusers were handled by his staff, his attorneys and the media. At the time the First Lady was blaming reports regarding her husband’s sexual exploits as part of "a right-wing conspiracy." Numerous White House security agents then came forward with reports of her own trysts with female partners, in various rooms of the White House during nightly security checks.

What was contained in those delinquent tax filings that cost Vince Foster his life? What could have driven him to commit sui! cide? If what Miguel Rodriguez said about the Starr investigation was correct, that it was being used to coverup the murder of Vince Foster, perhaps Ambassador Leo Wanta could shed some light on a possible motive.

The Vince Foster connection

In 1993, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta met with Vince Foster in Geneva, Switzerland. Foster had traveled there to make a special pickup of a disbursement that had been formally requested by the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. According to Wanta, he had been working on "Seal projects" and had been requested to transfer $250 million to an account that was retrievable by Foster. The account was destined for the "Children’s Defense Fund," hardly a "Seal" project. Wanta arranged for three payments, approximately $81 million dollars each, to be made and converted to U.S. Treasury notes which were given to Foster, who then gave them to Hillary Clinton.

The "Children’s Defense Fund" was a pet project of Hillary Rodham Clinton. It would be revealing to track the $25! 0 million "appropriation" from Switzerland to its final destination. Congress usually handles such appropriations, which are mandated by legislation. Congress did not authorize the briefcase pickup of $250 million from Geneva, Switzerland—by deputy White House counsel-turned-bagman. If the "Children’s Defense Fund" is actually a CIA operation, then one must also conclude that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a CIA operative.

Shortly after Vince Foster departed for his return trip to Washington (with $250 million in tow), Wanta was arrested by Swiss police. His long nightmare had just begun. He was an Ambassador with diplomatic privileges and was incarcerated in a Swiss dungeon. No one close to Wanta, other than principals within the U.S. administration and intelligence agencies, knew about his imprisonment for quite some time. Were it not for Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, he might have remained there for an eternity. Israel, along with several other European ! countries, held a financial interest in Wanta’s release. Rabin’s communication to Swiss authorities ultimately influenced Wanta’s release from Swiss detention, although he was then immediately shackled and illegally extradited to a Federal Court in New York City, and then to Wisconsin, in order to face phony tax charges.

Pardon me?

Wanta, who not only held diplomatic immunity but was also a U.S. Secret Service/Treasury, CIA, and FBI agent, had been instructed by then FBI Director William Sessions to arrest Marc Rich (Reich). Rich is a key player in arms deals, drug trafficking, oil and mineral exploration, and other big-ticket transactions and is a known CIA operative. Rich, who was operating Martwell Investments, a corporation with suspicious contacts to the United Nations, was indicted by then Prosecutor Rudolph Giuliani. According to accounts originally authored by Christopher Story, a Fellow at the British Royal Society of the Arts, and published by the "International Currency Review," "Economic Intelligence Review" and on! his associated website, www.worldreports.org, Rich was tipped off by Mossad agents and escaped arrest by Wanta. It was then that Ambassador Wanta was illegally arrested by Swiss police and incarcerated in a dungeon for 134 days, until his subsequent illegal extradition to New York. Sessions was relieved of duty shortly thereafter.

To add to the mystery, Marc Rich (Reich) was proven by Story, in the "International Currency Review," Volume 31, Numbers 3 and 4, with a mountain of irrefutable documentation, to have entered Canada in 1954 under the name, "Hans Brand," a German national born in Lelbach/Waldeck uber Korbach, Germany, and not in Antwerp, Belgium. "Marc Rich" (Reich) is merely an alias, and contrary to his exaggerated, autobiographical declarations, the facts documented by Story expose the extent to which the government will hide the truth from the public. In 1983, Rich and his partner Pincus Green were indicted by then U.S. Attorney Guiliani for tax evasion! and illegal trading with Iran. Both Rich and Green fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution and remained on the FBI’s most wanted list until January 20, 2001—the day President Clinton gifted Rich with an 11th-hour pardon prior to leaving office. The pardon caused a shockwave of anger and disbelief among those who understood the treasonous nature of Rich’s activities.

Wanta’s troubles come home

Rich’s association with the Clintons may have some relevance to the theft of "Contract #4," a $5 trillion contract previously held between the United Nations and Ambassador Leo E. Wanta, and subsequently "stolen" by the Clintons.

Before the false charges were dismissed in New York City, the federal judge asked Wanta why he was there and why his briefcase contained "$18 billion in Treasury instruments." The judge dismissed the charges on the basis of Wanta’s diplomatic immunity, though she was interested in the large sum in Wanta’s possession. The prosecutor rushed to have all charges dismissed, in an attempt ! to prevent Wanta’s disclosure of the true facts behind his arrest and appearance in federal court.

Upon his release from the proceedings in federal court, Ambassador Wanta was arrested, now for a third time, by "two New York City policemen on the courthouse steps and without a warrant." The charge: "tax evasion in the State of Wisconsin." Again, Wanta faced trumped up charges, though he had not lived in Wisconsin for years. By this time, in 1993, it was apparent that someone was trying to permanently prevent him from accessing the funds he had amassed at the bequest of President Reagan, for the ultimate benefit of the American people.

According to Wanta, after his illegal arrest and extradition to Wisconsin, he was drugged while incarcerated in an Oklahoma prison, during which no fewer than four attempts were made to have him permanently diagnosed and admitted to a mental institution. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal suffered a similar fate in 1949, until! he was eventually "suicided." The reader is reminded that "suicide" is merely doublespeak for "homicide," especially when a government official or operative is in a position to disclose information pertaining to a crime committed by someone in government.

However, due to the enormous amount of money amassed during the financial destabilization of the former Soviet Union, Wanta would not suffer the same fate until the locations of the accounts and pass codes could be determined—accounts he had carefully established to keep the funds from being stolen by several interested parties.

Note: Wanta later described three attempts by agents to murder him while he was illegally imprisoned by Swiss authorities. On one occasion, after receiving advice from a female Chinese physician who had examined him, he refused to eat some cheese that was included with his meal. Another prisoner ate the cheese and died "almost instantly." Wanta had previously been denied medications and treatment for prior-existing medical conditions and he had also be! en beaten by Swiss intelligence operatives during his illegal incarceration. The Swiss authorities also informed Wanta that Vince Foster had "committed suicide" on the birthday of Wanta’s daughter, a veiled threat to imply that she or another family member may be "taken out" in a similar fashion.

A summary of Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta’s ordeal in the Wisconsin courts reveals "bogus," trumped-up felony income tax charges that were assessed during a time he was living in a foreign country as an ambassador with diplomatic immunity.

In June, 1992, Wanta grudgingly paid a Wisconsin tax fine of $14,129 while operating in Singapore. The payment was forwarded to his attorney in Wisconsin, but was not recorded by the authorities until late 1995. A second penalty (of the same amount) was paid under protest in July, 1992, as the first payment "had not been received." A third payment of $30,626.97 was made in July, 2005, based upon "accrued interest" of the previously "! unpaid fines." Finally, Wanta’s home was seized and sold for a reported $60,000.

On each occasion, pertinent documents and receipts were "lost," "misplaced," or "never received." The third such payment was actually made on behalf of Ambassador Wanta by Story, the above-mentioned editor, from his personal funds. Incredibly, in October of 2006, a fourth assessment of this "fine" against Wanta was again made by the authorities of the State of Wisconsin, citing similar "reasons" for the fine. Wanta, it is believed, is soon to file a $1 billion lawsuit against the state under RICO statutes and other torts.

Who is Leo Wanta?

Although Wanta’s birth records and his Social Security number indicate his given name at birth was, "Lee Emil Wanta," he is known in intelligence circles as, "Leo Emil Wanta." The fact that Wisconsin authorities levied charges against him under "Leo Emil Wanta" shows the charges to be related to his position within the scope of his intelligence duties, and not as a private individual, "Lee! Emil Wanta." The insinuation by the prosecution that "Leo Emil Wanta could not have been the Ambassador to Somalia because he is not black" is further testament of a conspiracy to discredit Wanta, while intelligence agencies and three successive presidential administrations blatantly pilfer public funds—funds that Wanta is still intending to repatriate into the U.S. Treasury.

Subsequent to Wanta’s illegal incarceration and persecution due to the bogus charges levied against him, he received an "Illuminati" 22-year prison sentence in Wisconsin. He was painted as a "liar" and a "con man" by the prosecution, though never actually proven by any evidence in court. To the contrary, fabricated statements made by Wisconsin authorities and the FBI conflicted with those made by the CIA. While Wanta was incarcerated, the CIA was raiding the various assets of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., New Republic/USA Financial Group, GES.m.b.H., Aneko Credit PTE, Limited, Marvelous Investment! s, Ltd., AmeriChina and his other companies, proclaiming that he was actually "dead," even though the CIA was well-informed of his "trial" and subsequent incarceration in an Oklahoma high-security prison. A 26-page handwritten letter to President Clinton at the White House persuaded him to commute Wanta’s sentence to "house arrest" in Wisconsin, but the illegal raiding of the various Wanta-owned, Title 18, Section 6 accounts then continued unabated and continues today.

After years of victimization through illegal imprisonment, torture, beatings, drugging, defamation, and assassination attempts, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta rose from the ashes of his "death" and began to shock the rest of the world. In 2003, Virginia District Federal Judge Gerald Bruce Lee declared Ambassador Wanta to be the "Principal" and Trustor of the $27.5 trillion in funds obtained via the financial implosion of the Soviet Union. Wanta was now in a position to investigate the various means by which the last of three successive presidential administrations had been sy! stematically embezzling the very funds he was commissioned by President Reagan to accrue to revitalize the beleaguered American economy.

Violating the public trustor

Upon his "release" from prison, Wanta remained under house arrest until May, 2005. Out of the way and powerless to intervene, Wanta watched as the raiding of his corporate accounts continued. To fully understand the enormous deception and level of corruption, one must read the publication, "International Currency Review." This 480-page quarterly is a masterful piece of investigative journalism which decimates the falsehoods, deflections, inconsistencies, and conspiratorial deceptions employed by the Administration, the banks, U.S. intelligence agencies, the U.S. Treasury, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, and the Wisconsin State / U.S. Departments of Justice. Irrefutable evidence has been revealed in this publication, including official documents, Wanta’s handwritten notes and! communications to government officials, court transcripts, public records, bank records and receipts.

The bank documents and illicit transactions that Wanta had documented are also supported, in some instances, by photographic evidence. On at least one occasion, intelligence operatives filmed Senator Hillary Clinton at the Bank of Crozier, Grenada. Wanta and others have documented no less than $742 billion in theft from U.S. Treasury accounts there, where Clinton is alleged to have presented CIA documentation in order to withdraw funds in April, 2003. The evidence was submitted to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been conducting grand jury investigations into a variety of crimes committed by career politicians and government operatives.

Add to this mountain of evidence supporting Wanta’s claims, in particular the exhaustive list of "participating banks" and elected officials "in the know," and there can be no doubt that there is a concerted effort by the mainstream media, the government and the courts to completely c! overup this most-important crisis. Recent developments in foreign countries underscore the level of deterioration of trust and confidence in the U.S. government due to the outrageous plot to conceal the facts of this case and its negative impact on the world economy and exponentially-escalating levels of U.S. debt.

By December, 2005, Ambassador, Principal and Trustor Wanta had agreed to a settlement of $4.5 trillion, in order to prevent the total implosion of the U.S. economy. This settlement would have required his silence about the remaining funds, which would have given the thieves an "out" and allowed them to continue their pillaging. The settlement would also prevent a domino effect from occurring in other world financial markets. The embezzled funds have since circuited the world several times over, being deposited, transferred, and then laundered through off-balance sheet derivatives and other illegal transactions.

The numbers are staggering
It was no coincidence that the settlement funds were "signed off" to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Upon instructions from Federal Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, the $4.5 trillion settlement was originally deposited into a Bank of America account in Virginia, where the case was decided in federal court by Judge Lee. The windfall tax that Ambassador Wanta intended to pay to the U.S. Treasury amounted to $1.575 trillion. Just on the accrued interest alone, that windfall tax would have earned "$96 billion per day," according to Christopher Story’s "ICR" accounting. Story estimated that the U.S. Treasury, through the duplicitous activities of Secretary Paulson, lost some $10.5 to $11 trillion in interest during the 7-month period following the original "due date" of the $4.5 trillion settlement.

The State (Commonwealth) of Virginia stood to gain a windfall tax payment of some $270 million from the settlement. Because Vice-President and Treasurer Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., of the Ameritrust! Groupe, Inc. conducts business in the State of Pennsylvania that state was due a similar windfall tax payment, though the actual amount is unknown at this time.

Other disbursements promised to foreign officials and/or governments include: "$30 billion to the Russian Federation, [and] $5 billion each to the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, and Spain."

Where’s the money?

Previously, similar amounts had been promised to the governments of Israel and Palestine, though the "publicized" $15 billion dual payments to both governments were also stolen. Remember that Yitzhak Rabin had attempted to assist in the release of Ambassador Wanta from a Swiss gulag in Lausanne in 1993. Again, the media did its job by covering up the story.

In addition to the blatant refusal of the U.S. administration and the U.S. Treasury to disburse the funds to the legal trustor, the funds were transferred from bank to bank, movin! g first from the Bank of America account to Wachovia Bank in New York and onward to Goldman Sachs. Intelligence information shows that the funds still reside at Goldman Sachs, though this is denied by the firm. In fact, a Treasury agent recently confirmed that the funds are there, being held illegally and with the complicity of Secretary Paulson.

Shortly after the North Korean "nuclear missile test" scare in late-2006, it was reported by intelligence sources that President Bush had traveled to that country while Treasury Secretary Paulson went to Latvia. Some of the Wanta funds had previously been tracked through North Korea, en route to India. The reported amount was $25 trillion. Coincidentally, after the "successful" missile tests, North Korea received a secret $55 million payment from the U.S. The media assisted in the promotion of fear, yet failed to report this curiously-timed disbursement of funds.

In mid-December, 2006, both Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke traveled to China to meet with elders ! and finance ministers. Though the Chinese repeatedly urged U.S. officials to disburse the $4.5 trillion in Wanta settlement funds (and were repeatedly assured they would be dispersed), Paulson and Bernanke attempted to coerce them into "refinancing" $1 trillion in loans (the Chinese had been propping up the U.S. economy to protect its exports business in America by "purchasing" U.S. debt in the form of U.S. treasury bonds and other securities for several years) at 1 percent interest, far less than the usual 4-5 percent they previously received. To boot, the Chinese had already withdrawn $32 trillion in Clearinghouse Interbank Payment System (CHIPS) accounts ($1 trillion per day) during October and November, 2006, which nullified credit transactions above $100 million.

To add further insult to injury, the Chinese then began purchasing oil with British pound sterling, essentially "dumping" the dollar as the preferred oil currency. This fact was again covered up by the ! mainstream media, when they reported that China was "attempting to sabotage the dollar, by dumping $1 trillion in credits." The very same accusations were being made on the Congressional floor, prior to the Christmas recess.

Buoyed by frequent updates on the Wanta Plan and reports on the December 23, 2006 arrest of Treasury Secretary Paulson in Germany, the claims made by Ambassador Wanta appear, on all accounts, to be genuine. Paulson was allegedly arrested for attempting to block the settlement a second time. He arrived "late" to the funeral of President Gerald Ford, and was seen sitting behind Nancy Reagan and next to Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. Due to an impending visit from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Paulson was reportedly ushered on a plane and flown to Israel. Paulson reportedly was in possession of an Israeli passport, as well. His "diplomatic documentation" in Germany was also in dispute and was not "substantiated" by the U.S. Consulate.

Pieces are falling into place

A careful exami! nation of the Internal Currency Review will reveal that former President George H.W. Bush holds "dual citizenship" with Germany, as he is the reputed "head" of the Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst, the Dachau DVD, or the Abwehr (underground S.S.). Satellite photos confirm that Bush attended a "secret" meeting of the organization, over which he presides, since taking over its leadership from Dr. Henry Kissinger. Kissinger replaced the DVD founder, Admiral Canaris, who became ill in 1976. Canaris reestablished the DVD in Oklahoma City under the name, Samuel Randall Pittman after World War II. The DVD records were stored in the Murrah Federal Building, which was subsequently destroyed in the infamous bombing by "Timothy McVeigh." CNN also assisted in the coverup of that event, although they "accidentally" transmitted pictures of an "unexploded, stacked bomb" which was visible in the portion of the building that was left standing.

Among the many documents that have mysterio! usly surfaced on the Internet—documents that support Wanta’s claims—are a series of bank transfer records known as the "Vreeland Faxes." Delmart Edward "Mike" Vreeland, an ONI agent, posted copies of Wanta’s records on the Web which detail multi-billion dollar transactions, account numbers, and recipient information. Of interest to many were the names of the "shell" corporations. "The Francis X. Driscoll Trust" was purportedly a joint account between George H.W. Bush and the Queen of England. "Pilgrim Investments" was found to have ties, among others, to Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd., the global shipping company owned by Li Ka-Shing, a Chinese billionaire and real estate tycoon. Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) is a subsidiary that controls ports around the world and has the exclusive rights to control the Panama Canal. Though the arrangement appeared to make no sense at all to most Americans, with the information above, we can now understand why the current administration attempted to give the "port inspection" contract to Hutchison-Whampoa in the ! Bahamas in 2006, under the pretext of "inspecting cargo for nuclear devices."

Though the media reported the Ports Dubai scandal, they failed to accurately describe the attempt to "hand over" American ports to a company from the Middle East. Despite the news that "six" ports were to be handed over to the company, 22 to 29 ports along the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico would have been a more accurate analysis of the plan.
According to Leo Wanta, on November 1, 2001, U.S. agents secretly met in Manila, Philippines with a "lieutenant" of Osama Bin Laden, Datu Ben Abu. Wanta detailed the identity of participants of the meeting, which was reminiscent to the above-referenced Hilton Hotel meeting in 1986. In a handwritten letter to Vice-President Richard Cheney, Wanta described "Red Mercury, Stinger II missiles and boxes of cash (weapons)."

Also present at the clandestine meeting were a "Dr. Navarro" and a "Madame Teleki (Eva Teleki)." Despite Wanta’s incarcera! tion, it appeared that his expertise was still considered valuable to the perpetrators of 9/11. Cheney forwarded the letter to the head of the NSA, Condoleeza Rice, and then on to the president. Despite the rhetoric we heard leading up to the invasion of Iraq, it was apparent our government was willing to assist those who were later blamed for the WTC/Pentagon attacks — al-Queda. Of course, the media failed to report and investigate this important story as well.

End notes

Little known to the public is the imminent insolvency of several large financial institutions due to the off-balance sheet and tax-free transactions in worldwide derivatives markets. Although the media continue to sensationalize their usual bevy of trivial news stories, the greatest financial scandal in the history of the United States—and in the world—marches onward, while their treacherous conspiracy and complicity to hide the facts in this case demonstrates their willingness to honor treason, corruption, and tyranny. (Note: Readers should ! note that this article was written in January 2007, well before the financial crisis began later that year. The theft and fraud involving Ambassador Wanta’s funds was, indeed, one of the major causes of the crises that followed the loss to the American people.)

Despite the best efforts of the government and its intelligence agencies to distort the facts, misinform, or outright lie about the Wanta Plan, the Internet has been a repository of information. As the story has begun to be understood and verified by many outstanding researchers and conspiracy experts, the criminals perpetrating the fraud on the American public and the world have suddenly realized that the clock is ticking, and time is running out. Several Internet talk-show hosts (not worth mentioning by name) have determined the story to be "a hoax." Such ignorant declarations smack of the same hypocrisy that is evident among a "bribed" or "bridled" mainstream media. The citizens of the United States have w! itnessed countless assassinations of public figures, the subsequent cover-ups, and the rhetoric that ultimately follows. The problem here is that we have been lied to one too many times, and this story will not "go away," as have those of the past.

The time has come for all Americans to awaken from the mind control, the brain washing, and the dismantling of our individual sovereignty. Ambassador Leo E. Wanta, Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., and Christopher Story (a British citizen) have exhibited a determination to honor the truth, a quality severely lacking among those entrusted with our safety and well-being. These courageous men have demonstrated more loyalty to our country than those who have openly and systematically defied the very laws they, themselves, have created. The crime of the millennium is being perpetrated before our very eyes, and if left to an incompetent, compliant, and conspiratorial media, the price will be far greater than what is now an estimated $75 trillion in stolen funds.

Posted by The Wanta Chronicles at 9:12 PM 0 comments


 

Who is Leo Wanta?
by J. Orlin Grabbe
"Bill Clinton's Short-Term Notes"
Asian-European, the CIA, and Mochtar Riady

Meet Leo Emil Wanta. At one point Wanta had bank accounts at Metishe Bank in Moscow, Avenue Bank on the Champs-Elysee in Paris, Credito Italiano in Milan, Anker Bank in Geneva, Swiss Bank Corporation in Geneva, the Algemeine Spaar in Brussels, the Zentralsparkasse und Kommerzialbank in Vienna, Creditanstalt Bankverein in Vienna, and–the perennial favorite of money launderers–Citibank in Milan, New York, and Los Angeles.

Meet Leo Emil Wanta, a man accused of, or praised for, crashing the Russian ruble over 1990-1. There is no doubt that he was a currency trader, placing orders for 100 billion rubles at a time. Then there is the matter of gold–Russian gold.

One of the orders faxed around the world from his New Republic/USA Financial Group Ltd. (2101 North Edgewood Avenue, Appleton, WI 54914! , Tele/Fax: (414) 738-7007), dated Feb. 4, 1991, is an offer to buy/sell/effect 2000 metric tons of gold bullion, with rollovers under London good delivery. At the time of this offer, Wanta was in constant phone contact with Roberto Coppola in Rome, where Coppola served as Ambassador of the Russian Republic. Was it Russian gold Wanta was selling?

Was Wanta just another trader specializing in illiquid currencies and flight capital in the form of bullion? Was he a big time money launderer? Either would explain the 14 percent commissions at which he dealt. Or was neither the case? Let's look closer. Because something doesn't add up.

Wanta, an erstwhile traveling companion of Vernon Walters and supplier of machine guns to Bill Casey, was arrested by Swiss authorities on July 7, 1993, in Geneva, Switzerland. He was held for four months, then extradited to Wisconsin to stand trial for state taxes owed for the years 1982 and 1988. The grand total of taxes owed–$14,0! 00.

Curious that. Extradited for $14,000? In taxes? From Switzerland? The story gets weirder.

Wanta was sentenced to 22 years in prison. (Better he had killed a few people than that he owed taxes.) Afterward, on Sept. 21, 1996, Wanta wrote a mysterious letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton, referring to "U.S. President Bill Clinton's Short Term Notes and IMF Sale of Bullion." In the letter Wanta referred to his own "de-stabilization of the Soviet Union Rubles (SUR)" and noted that he "prevented the Soviet & Italian Mafiosa from the Soviet Funds in favour of our U.S. Treasury & Metals Accounts in excess of US$ 150 billion".

Wanta then threatened: "Until by legal release from the unconsitutional/false incarceration in Wisconsin–as a diplomat & non-resident – I am legally interested in the corporate placement of short-term notes & I.M.F. gold bullion/troy ounce delivery contract. Thank you for your kind assistance in this timely situation."

Wanta's letter (or letters) got results. On Jan. 10, 1997, Wanta r! eceived a reply from Erskine Bowles at the White House.
Mr. Leo E. Wanta
c/o Kettle Moraine
Correctional Institute
P.O. Box 31
Plymouth, WI 53073

Dear Mr. Wanta:

Thank you for your letter. I appreciate hearing from you.

To give your concerns the proper attention, I have forwarded your letter to the Office of Agency Liaison within the White House. You can be certain that your concerns will be carefully reviewed.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Erskine B. Bowles

On February 1, 1997, after Bowles had checked with W.H. Agency Relations, Leo Wanta was released on $90,000 bail.

So here's what we know about Wanta so far: Extradited from Switzerland on a triviality. Sentenced to 22 years on the same triviality; but then sprung after references to "Bill Clinton's short-term notes" and the White House checks with Agency Liaison.

Then there's the Russian currency/gold issue. Wanta was dealing in bil! lions of dollars. Where did the financing come from? Another question comes to mind: How did Wanta get to be Ambassador from Somalia?

Claire Sterling's not-so-reliable book "Thieves' World" contains a good bit of information (and mis-information) on Leo Wanta. (Sources include a mysterious Mr. X, an "investment banker", and an unnamed FBI agent. Sterling's credits, however, may identify the latter source: she gives special mention to "Jim Moody of the FBI" – the man who headed up the FBI's organized crime division.

Wanta himself identifies Sterling's "Mr. X" as Treasury Special Agent Philip Wainwright.

Depending on your point of view, Wanta is a con artist or a hero: bilking the crumbling Soviet empire of its currency and resources, helping pushing the wounded bear over the cliff. Wanta's operation has been called the Great Ruble Scam. That is, one of the few ruble scams not engineered by the Russian central bank/Russian government itself.

Wanta presented his credentials in Moscow in October 1990. He was a member o! f Reagan's "President's Club" (meaning he had given $50,000 to the campaign). He also headed the "New Republic Financial Group" located in Appleton, WI, and registered in Vienna, Austria (New Republic/USA Financial Group, GES.m.b.H., Kartnerstrasse 28/15, Telefon: 513-4235, A-1010 Wien). New Republic had declared capital of about $17,000, according to Sterling. On this basis, Wanta wanted to swap $5 billion for 140 billion rubles, rising over five years to $50 billion for 300 billion rubles.

You never make money unless you think big, right? The proposal (one of three similar ones from seemingly disparate sources) was to be a mini-Marshall plan to import into Russia consumer goods like frozen chickens and Tampax. Or that was the story. Boris Yeltsin approved the deal, but it fell through, according to Sterling, when the State Department reported that Wanta "had major debts and some credit card problems". (Wanta denies that the State Department ever issued such a state! ment. Much of Sterling's information, in fact, seems to come from a Soviet investigator looking to smear Wanta as a common criminal.)

To Sterling's "Mr. X", who worked with Wanta, the objective was quite different: "I knew there would be a possibility of a Western privately orchestrated economic Jihad that could help crush the communist ruling powers by destroying their unstable ruble. Unilaterally and privately, I decided to play a catalytic role to crash the ruble."

During the previous year Wanta's group bought sold and traded rubles. Many of the orders/offers appear to be bogus–calculated to cause a run on the ruble.

And–coming forward to October 1990–Wanta's deal of $5 billion for 140 billion rubles, or 28 rubles to the dollar, would have been transacted at roughly double the value of the dollar relative to its black market rate which was closer to 14 rubles to the dollar. If executed, the plan would have effectively given Wanta a free 70 billion rubles with which to help himself to the natural resources of a crumbl! ing empire. Not bad. Who was Wanta representing? Himself? Or the U.S. government?

Moving forward to Jan./Feb. 1991, we find Wanta in the process of moving two thousand tons of gold–during a time period when coincidentally two thousand tons of Soviet gold mysteriously disappeared from the Central Bank.

By December 1991 Wanta and his partner Kok Howe Kwong had set up a food for petroleum joint venture in Moscow. Accounts in dollars and rubles were opened at Status Credit Bank in Singapore by the two through Asian-Europa Development Pte Ltd. Asian-Europa proceeded to export Soviet petroleum and import Western goods at an exchange rate (oil for goods) very favorable to Asian-Europa. Asian-Europa appears to be a U.S. government/CIA proprietary company set up under USCA Title 18, Sec. 6., Line 11. And it appears to have had a relationship with Mochtar Riady's Lippo Group.

Without a doubt, Wanta dealt the fading Soviet apparatus a body slam or two. Does that ! make Leo Wanta an American hero? And if so, why was he incarcerated? Was it just to keep him off the streets because of what he knew (a standard maneuver in the intelligence community)? Does that explain Wanta's bogus extradition from Switzerland? Or was Wanta just a clever con artist who could somehow come up with the contacts and billions of dollars necessary to deceive a crumbling superpower, not to mention the CIA and the U.S. Treasury? Either way, Wanta ain't your average used-car salesman. Wanta may be a victim railroaded by the government he served.

Leo Wanta was appointed Ambassador of Somalia for Switzerland and Canada in March 1993. In July, Wanta had been in Switzerland to make $250,000,000 available for the Children's Defense Fund at the request of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. Children's Defense Fund? Whose idea was that? What was going on there?

Shortly after Wanta's arrest, and following his daughter's birthday on July 20, 1993, the Superintendent for the Swiss prison where Wanta was being held came by a! nd told Wanta that Wanta's friend Foster had been murdered.

Wanta used to visit FBI Director William Sessions at his office through a secret entry known as the "back of stage". There he would nearly always meet with a Mr.Gonzalez and a Mr. Jim Moody, who were the FBI enforcers for RICO and organized crime issues. Moody was the head of the FBI's organized crime section.

Can any of this shed some light on the death of Vince Foster? Clearly Foster was engaged in some major financial dealings–including the $250,000,000 for the Children's Fund that Wanta discusses. Foster's financial dealings may not explain why he was killed. But they could very well explain why there was no investigation.

What does Wanta think?

Posted by The Wanta Chronicles at 8:52 PM 2 comments

Home

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Followers

Blog Archive

 2009 (2)

 September (2)

From the January 2007 Idaho Observer: Following t…

Who is Leo Wanta? by J. Orlin Grabbe "Bill Clinton…

About Me

The Wanta Chronicles

View my complete profile

 

Please Reply to OldDog at wethepeople@anationbeguiled.com

 

 

The Secession Solution

January 14th, 2011 by

The Secession Solution

by Kirkpatrick Sale

Aristotle declared that there should be a limit to the size of states. But really, what did he know? He lived at a time when the entire population of the world was somewhere around 50 million—about the size of England today. Athens, where he lived, would have been under 100,000 people. He couldn’t even imagine a world (ours) of 6.8 billion, or a city (Tokyo) of 36 million. How is he going to help us?

He, at least, knew this much:

“Experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds of reason, and the same result will follow: for law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly.”

So political units, Aristotle said, have to be limited. And it is with that understanding that we now may start contemplating what in today’s world would constitute the ideal, or optimum, size of a political state.

This is not some sort of idle philosopher’s quest but the foundation of a serious reordering of our political landscape, and a reordering such as the process of secession—indeed, only the process of secession—could provide. The U.S. provides abundant evidence that a state as large as 310 million people is ungovernable. One scholar recently said that we are in the fourth decade of the U.S. Congress’ inability to pass a single measure of social consequence. Bloated and corrupted beyond its ability to address any of the problems it has created as an empire, it is a blatant failure. So what could replace it, and at what size? The answer is the independent states of America.

Let us start by looking at modern nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that actually work.

Among the nations that are recognized models of statecraft, eight are below 500,000: Luxembourg, Malta, Iceland, Barbados, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino.

Of the 14 states generally reckoned freest in the world, 9 have populations below Switzerland’s, at 7.7 million, and 11 below Sweden’s, at 9.3 million; the only sizable states are Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany (the largest, at 81 million).There are other national rankings. Literacy: Of the 46 countries that claim a literacy rate of 99 or better, 25 are below 7.5 million. Health: Measured by the World Health Organization, 9 of the top 20 are under 7 million. In 2009 rankings of happiness and standard of living, the top countries were Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, and Finland; all but Canada and Australia have small populations.

Enough of that. The point, I trust, is well and simply made. The figures seem to suggest that there is an optimum size of a successful state, somewhere in the range of 3 million to 5 million people.

Surprisingly, a great many countries are also modest in geographic terms—underlining the point, often missed by critics of secession, that a nation does not have to be self-sufficient to operate well in the modern world. In fact, there are 85 countries out of the 195 counted by the United Nations that are under 10,000 square miles—that is to say, the size of Vermont or smaller.

And if we measure economic strength by per capita GDP, small countries prove to be decidedly advantageous. Seventy-seven percent of the most prosperous countries are small. And most of them are quite small indeed: under 10,000 square miles.

Administrative, distribution, transportation, and similar transaction costs obviously rise, perhaps exponentially, as geographic size increases. Control and communication also become more difficult to manage over long distances, often to the point where central authority and governance become nearly impossible.

I propose that, out of these figures and even more so out of the history of the world, results a Law of Government Size, and it goes like this: Economic and social misery increase in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation.

The consolidation of nations into power­ful empires leads not to shining periods of peace and prosperity and the advance of human betterment, but to increasing restriction, warfare, autocracy, crowding, immiseration, inequality, poverty, and starvation.

Small, then, is not only beautiful but also bountiful.

How does all of this apply to the United States today?

Of the 50 states, 29 have populations below 5 million people. Eight states and a colony in the 3 million to 5 million population class would be ideal secession candidates: Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Twelve—Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, and Arkansas—have between 1 million and 3 million people, and seven, including Vermont, have fewer than 1 million people but more than Iceland.

The argument for secession need not focus exclusively on population or geographic size—one might factor in cultural cohesion, developed infrastructure, historical identity—but that seems to be the sensible place to start in considering viable states. And since the experience of the world has shown that populations ranging from 3 mil­lion to 5 million are optimal for governance and efficiency, that is as good a measure as any to use to begin assessing secessionist potential and chances of success as independent states.

The only hope for re-energizing American politics is to create truly sovereign states through peaceful, popular, powerful secession.

Kirkpatrick Sale is director of the Middlebury Institute and the author of Human Scale.

 

 

 

 

Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse

January 14th, 2011 by

Are You Prepared For The Coming

Economic Collapse

And The Next Great Depression?

 

The Economic Collapse   http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-would-be-different-if-the-federal-reserve-had-never-been-created

 

10 Things That Would Be Different If The Federal Reserve Had Never Been Created

The vast majority of Americans, including many of those who believe that they are "educated" about the Federal Reserve, do not really understand how the Federal Reserve really makes money for the international banking elite. Many of those opposed to the Federal Reserve will point to the record $80.9 billion in profits that the Federal Reserve made last year as evidence that they are robbing the American people blind. But then those defending the Federal Reserve will point out that the Fed returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury. As a result, the Fed only made a couple billion dollars last year. Pretty harmless, eh? Well, actually no. You see, the money that the Federal Reserve directly makes is not the issue. Rather, the "magic" of the Federal Reserve system is that it took the power of money creation away from the U.S. government and gave it to the bankers. Now, the only way that the U.S. government can inject more money into the economy is by going into more debt. But when new government debt is created, the amount of money to pay the interest on that debt is not also created. In this way, it was intended by the international bankers that U.S. government debt would expand indefinitely and the U.S. money supply would also expand indefinitely. In the process, the international bankers would become insanely wealthy by lending money to the U.S. government.

Every single year, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are made lending money to the U.S. government.

But why in the world should the U.S. government be going into debt to anyone?

Why can't the U.S. government just print more money whenever it wants?

Well, that is not the way our system works. The U.S. government has given the power of money creation over to a consortium of international private bankers.

Not only is this unconstitutional, but it is also one of the greatest rip-offs in human history.

In 1922, Henry Ford wrote the following….

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

It is important to try to understand how the international banking elite became so fabulously wealthy. One of the primary ways that this was accomplished was by gaining control over the issuance of national currencies and by trapping large national governments in colossal debt spirals.

The U.S. national debt problem simply cannot be fixed under the current system. U.S. government debt has been mathematically designed to expand forever. It is a trap from which there is no escape.

Many liberals won't listen because they don't really care about ever paying off the debt, and most conservatives won't listen because they are convinced we can solve the national debt problem if we just get a bunch of "good conservatives" into positions of power, but the truth is we have such a horrific debt problem because it was designed to be this way from the beginning.

So how would America be different if we could go back to 1913 and keep the Federal Reserve Act from ever being passed? Well, the following are 10 things that would be different if the Federal Reserve had never been created….

#1If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government could conceivably have a national debt of zero dollars. Instead, we currently have a national debt that is over 14 trillion dollars.

#2If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government would likely not be spending one penny on interest payments. Instead, the U.S. government spent over 413 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2010. This is money that belonged to U.S. taxpayers that was transferred to the U.S. government, which in turn was transferred to wealthy international bankers and other foreign governments. It is being projected that the U.S. government will be paying 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019.

#3If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, there would not even have to be a debate about raising "the debt ceiling", because such a debate would not even be necessary.

#4If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, it is conceivable that we would not even need the IRS. You doubt this? Well, the truth is that the United States did just fine for well over a hundred years without a national income tax. But about the same time the Federal Reserve was created a national income tax was instituted as well. The whole idea was that the wealth of the American people would be transferred to the U.S. government by force and then transferred into the hands of the ultra-wealthy in the form of interest payments.

#5If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not be on the verge of national insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080. Remember when I used the term "debt spiral" earlier?  Well, this is what a debt spiral looks like….

#6If the Federal Reserve did not exist, the big Wall Street banks would not have such an overwhelming advantage.  Most Americans simply have no idea that over the last several years the Federal Reserve has been giving gigantic piles of nearly interest-free money to the big Wall Street banks which they turned right around and started lending to the federal government at a much higher rate of return.  I don't know about you, but if I was allowed to do that I could make a whole bunch of money very quickly.  In fact, it has come out that the Federal Reserve made over $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks, large financial institutions and other "friends" during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.

#7If the Federal Reserve did not exist, it is theoretically conceivable that we would have an economy with little to no inflation.  Of course that would greatly depend on the discipline of our government officials (which is not very great at this point), but the sad truth is that our current system is always going to produce inflation.  In fact, the Federal Reserve system was originally designed to be inflationary.  Just check out the inflation chart posted below.  The U.S. never had ongoing problems with inflation before the Fed was created, but now it is just wildly out of control….

IMAGE WITHELD

#8If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the U.S. dollar would not be a dying currency. Since the Federal Reserve was created, the U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its purchasing power. By constantly inflating the currency, it transfers financial power away from those already holding the wealth (the American people) to those that are able to create more currency and more government debt. Back in 1913, the total U.S. national debt was just under 3 billion dollars. Today, the U.S. government is spending approximately 6.85 million dollars per minute, and the U.S. national debt is increasing by over 4 billion dollars per day.

#9If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not have an unelected, unaccountable "fourth branch of government" running around that has gotten completely and totally out of control. Even some members of Congress are now openly complaining about how much power the Fed has. For example, Ron Paul told MSNBC last year that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now more powerful than Congress…..

"The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress."

#10If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the American people would be much more free. We would not be enslaved to this horrific national debt. Our politicians would not have to run around the globe begging people to lend us money. Representatives that we directly elect would be the ones setting national monetary policy. Our politicians would be much less under the influence of the international banking elite. We would not be at the mercy of the financial bubbles that the Fed has constantly been creating.

There is a reason why so many of the most prominent politicians from the early years of the United States were so passionately against a central bank. The following is a February 1834 quote by President Andrew Jackson about the evils of central banking….

I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out.

But we didn't listen to men like Andrew Jackson.

We (our government) allowed the Federal Reserve to be created in 1913 and we (our government) have allowed it to develop into an absolute monstrosity over the past century.

Now we are drowning in debt and we are on the verge of national bankruptcy. Will the American people wake up before it is too late?


OLDDOGS COMMENT

Over the last few years I have read many articles with the same basic story, but seldom read the comments. Today I did, and the one below hit the nail hard enough to wake me up to the most import fact in the whole story. Considering how thorough the patriot communities’ authors have been, it is worth noting that darn few names have been published as beneficiaries in this unbelievable scam. I hope many of you will join me in conducting more research on just who they are, and how much they have earned at our expense.

This is copied from the comments section below the article.

WhatsYourName

January 13th, 2011 at 3:01 am

Disappointed that everyone is listing a bunch of vague generalities. Who exactly is benefiting from all this stuff being written. Not companies and organizations, but people. How much are they specifically earning? I’ve heard and read this same stuff that’s being said in these comments for 30+ years, but no one ever seems to name names AND how much money they specifically made. Without listing people and how much money they made, everything above is completely meaningless.

 

 

TOWARD A SENSIBLE M0NETARY POLICY BY DR. RON PAUL

January 11th, 2011 by

THE DAILY BELL

 

Last week the 112th Congress was sworn in. I am pleased that I will be chairing the Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, which has oversight of the Federal Reserve. Obviously, this position will facilitate my efforts to ensure the Fed provides the American people with more information about what they have been doing with and to our money. Not surprisingly, since my chairmanship was announced, apologists for the Fed have been recycling the old canard about how increased transparency threatens the Fed's so-called political independence.

 

READ MORE AT

 http://www.thedailybell.com/1671/Toward-Sensible-Monetary-Policy.html

Year to date statistics on Airport Screening by the TSA

January 10th, 2011 by

 

Terrorist Plots Discovered             0
 
Transvestites                              133
 
Hernia’s                                     1,485
 
Hemorrhoid Cases                      3,172
 
Enlarged Prostates                     8,249
 
Breast Implants                         59,350
 
Natural Blondes                         3

Is Obama the secret son of Malcolm X?

January 10th, 2011 by

 

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of

If Barack Hussein Obama II is Malcolm X's biological son and ideological heir, it would uniquely explain the mystery of why he was so generously helped by so many Arab and communist "friends in high places" long before he was a "somebody."

Malcolm ensured his secret son would learn the ways of Islam, of revolution, tutored by the finest socialist ideologues of his time, and the future, funded by Saudi and Syrian financiers. He would be groomed for leadership, educated and trained to organize the community called the United States of America.

Morph of Barack O to Malcolm X courtesy Polarik.

In August I received a curious email. As a magazine that covers international politics, with a focus on Mideast affairs, Israel Insider gets more from its fair share of baseless tips and phony rumors. I ignore most and delete them unread. This one was a bit different. It came from a national security lawyer with extensive credentials and intelligence connections that checked out, and a phone number.

Israel Insider had been running a series of articles exploring the vagaries of Barack Obama's birth, and his concealed documentation, and this was the jumping off point of the email, which confirmed the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii, that "Mossad are going with Mombasa" but "Proving Mombasa is not so easy, as NSIS in Nairobi are clamming up tight, as are MI6 in London, who have the original Mombasa file and full details of the birth."

He said that "Disproving Honolulu is child's play. You've already shown that the birth certificate put forward by Obama (whose people privately are not denying Mombasa, by the way) is a fake. Why fake it? If he was born in Honolulu he could obtain a genuine one. Hawaii Dept of Health would hardly denounce a potential presidential candidate's birth certificate as fraudulent without cross-checking birth records for August 1961. No birth was registered in the name of Obama in Honolulu in August 1961."

(This last detail may explain why Hawaiian officials last Friday confirmed that a birth certificate does indeed exist but conspicuously refused to release any details or even confirm that the details conform to those on the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth. The name on the "original" certificate may in fact not be Obama nor the birthplace Honolulu. But Obama's recent visit "to his grandmother" may well have had less to do with her health than eliciting this vague and inconclusive statement from the Hawaiian Health Department.)

The source continues: "There is no evidence Ann Dunham had even met Obama Senior in or around November 1960, the alleged time of conception, indeed it is not even clear Obama was in Honolulu at that time, although he may have been. Ann Dunham was only 17 and although she might have been in Honolulu the timing is tight." "More to the point, she was in neither of the medical centers put forward by the Obama campaign (question: why do they not know in which hospital he was born?) on August 4th, nor are there medical records to back up the claimed birth, nor has an attending physician been named. I've heard of births with the father absent, births with the mother absent a bit trickier."

"There are said to be photos of Ann Dunham on Waikiki Beach taken in or about July 1961, when she is supposed to have been in her third trimester, in a bikini, taken by a fellow female student. AD is clearly not pregnant. Media have not yet talked to fellow students, but it can't be long. There are bound to be other photos of AD in existence taken during the alleged 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Obama campaign are terrified some one will press for her medical records, which have been accessed by CIA."

"Moving to Indonesia the Obama campaign are also suppressing the Indonesian immigration and passport records, which I believe show him as a Kenyan citizen, and the naturalisation records. They have not denied Internet claims he was naturalised in Indonesia. If he was a US citizen there should be a visa record to back that up."

"Obama Senior was murdered in Kenya in 1982 to silence him. Interesting story re his sister Auma as well — she appears to be a full sister, not a half-sister as he is claiming, i.e. they share the same mother. She was ordered back to Kenya in 2007 to prevent DNA testing …. CIA did a DNA test on the grandparents, using saliva from glasses, which conclusively rules out any relationship between Obama and the Dunhams."

"The source said that the Dunham family became involved because Stanley Dunham, Sr. was suspected of espionage. Boeing, he said, has "a 1944 security file on Stanley Dunham in connection with suspected sabotage of B-17G aircraft at their Wichita Kansas plant and the theft of B-29 blueprints, a full set of which were passed to the German Abwehr via Lisbon by June 1944. Ann Dunham appears to have been chosen as the surrogate mother in 1963 because of the family connection to German Intelligence. German assets in the US, including Rezko, who is connected to the Syrian Mukhabarat and the German DVD, sponsored his career.

"Effectively," the source concludes, "Obama is a German sleeper agent."

Well, this is a lot to take in, and on first reading it struck me that the source had been reading too many Le Carre novels or Bond movies. I mean, really: "The Manchurian Candidate" meets "The Boy from Mombassa"?

It seemed completely preposterous, and indeed I initially dismissed it as preposterous. Obama a "German sleeper agent"? Of course, in those days the East Germans were a Soviet satellite, and the DDR was perhaps the most feared and ideological of the communist states, with more than a sprinkling of rehabilitated Nazis uncured of their genetic fantasies and experiments. 1961-1963 were the peak years of the Cold War, with Berlin playing a central role in East-West hostilities.

But what made no sense to me was why anyone in the spy business, or anyone in East Germany for that matter, would give a damn to find a foster parent for a newborn illegitimate offspring of mixed black-white parentage. What made him so special that the Syrians and the German would go to all the trouble or see some potential value in protecting and grooming him? What could possibly make intelligence agencies cultivate from infancy a sleeper agent?

The source didn't answer this, nor could I, over the succeeding months of the campaign. We exchanged a few more emails, but the nagging question of "why" anyone would bother with this baby would not leave me. What did come out in the ensuing weeks, however, was a litany of unexplained facts in Obama's youthful history, of help from strangers in high places all along the way, benefactors who had either Arab-Muslim or Communist-Socialist connections. There was his Islamic education in Indonesia, the fact that he learned the Koran not in Indonesian but in Arabic. There was the fact that in Hawaii the boy was tutored in the ways of revolution by leading black activists, Muslim activists, and Communist activists. Influential black nationalist and Communist Frank Marshall Davis would become a huge influence in the young Obama's life.

There was his journey to the third-world, to Pakistan and East Africa, after his first year at Columbia. But things really got strange with the revelation that Khalid al-Mansour, close adviser to a Saudi billionaire and the Saudi royal family, was instrumental in helping Obama get into Harvard Law School (and reportedly Columbia before that), financing his education and advancement.

It was al-Mansour who asked Percy Sutton, a prominent black lawyer active in the civil rights movement and defending radicals in the 1950s and 1960s, to help Obama get into Harvard. In the interview with a New York news station (see video at left), Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama and asked him to "write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard Law School, Sutton recalled. "And his introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?" Sutton obliged: "I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly."
How in the world would Percy Sutton know that Obama, a young man he had never met, was a "genius"? Why would he say that he met all of the qualifications to be president of the law review, even before he was admitted to the school? One possible clue: It turns out that Sutton was among the lawyers for Malcolm X.

And why would a big wheel like al-Mansour take such an interest in a self-admitted drug-taking party boy ("I inhaled," he joked. "That was the whole point" he joked on the campaign trail) from a second-rate college? While helping Obama get into Harvard, the Muslim form Texas was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family, Saudi billionaires Abdul Aziz and Khalid al-Ibrahim, and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, nephew if King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia. So there was, early on, a direct connection between Obama and Saudi royalty and an aggressive effort by a Saudi agent to make Obama's way in the world.

It was this connection to Saudi wealth that has led to Obama being dubbed the "Mansourian candidate".

Then there were the revelations about Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn — unrepentant terrorists and communists both — who helped launch Obama's political career from their home. Ayers, indeed, may well have ghost-written Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father, creating the impression that Obama was also skilled in writing as well as "community organizing."

More substantially, there was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Syrian born real estate wheeler-dealer and convicted racketeer, who helped Obama raise his first campaign funds and assisted him financially, and even facilitated his home purchases.

There were influential Palestinian scholars and propagandists Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, colleagues and personal friends of Obama, despite his unconvincing efforts to distance himself from them and squelch his praise for their anti-Israel ideologies.

There was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor, who conducted his marriage, baptized their children, and gave Obama's campaign manifesto "Audacity of Hope" its title before being distanced (at least for the duration of the campaign) when their close twenty year relationship came to light.

And, of course, there is neighbor Louis Farrakhan, current leader of the Nation of Islam, who recently spoke of Obama as the "Messiah" and as Ken Timmerman confirms, enjoys an "open channel" of communication with him.

Why did all of these important scholars and ideologues, fundraiser and networkers, these millionaires and billionaires – especially from the Arab and Islamic world, and extreme socialist and communist party activists — reach out to help this unknown, undereducated young man, many before Obama was anybody of known importance? Was it just that he was tall and handsome and bright, with a silver tongue?

Or was there some other factor – a genetic factor, a secret legacy of heredity — that mysteriously opened the doors and wallets and elicited the kindness of strangers?

Last week, a long and rambling post attributed to one Rudy Schultz was made to the Atlas Shrugs blog of Pamela Geller. The starting point for the post was revelation of school records that show that the supposed mother of Barack Obama enrolled in the University of Washington just a few weeks after her son was purportedly born in Hawaii. But the intention of the poster was apparently to imply that Obama's father was unlikely to have been Barack Hussein Obama, Senior (photo at left).

The post provides photos and a video of Malcolm X, with a notation that he and Obama had the same height (6'2-6'-3") and striking physical resemblances: identical hairline, jawline, and other distinctive facial features, similarities not shared by Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. or other members of the Luo tribe bloodline.

The post noted striking similarities in speaking cadence and style, not to mention a bright flashing smile and a wry sense of humor. The man born in Nebraska as Malcolm Little also was a light shade of brown, the product of a mother from Grenada who, he said, "looked like a white woman" and a black father.

See more striking similarities from insider Octaman here.

The post also traced the path of Malcolm X in the late 1950's and early 1960's, a journey that took him to Africa and the young leadership circle to which Barack Hussein Obama Sr. also belonged, including the activist Tom Mboya who was behind the program which airlifted, with US funding, young African leaders to Hawaii to study at the university, a cohort to which Obama senior belonged.

But Schultz concludes his post by pulling his punches a bit: "While Malcolm X may not be Obama’s biological father, Malcolm X is demonstrably Barack Hussein Obama’s philosophical father, and the lineage is undeniable! Obama Jr. was sired in the social soup stirred by Malcolm X."

While Schultz backed away from claiming that Obama's biological father may in fact be Malcolm X, the hereditary claim cannot be discounted. If he was indeed the illegitimate offspring of Malcolm – the closest that one can get to "royalty" in the messianic broth of black radical Islamic and Communistic politics – that would explain the otherwise inexplicable:

why this "illegitimate" baby, and later this young man – a druggie and underachiever — would have had paved for him the royal road to privilege and power, paid for his Ivy League education, got him jobs and a home, raised millions of dollars for his political career, got him selected to address the DNC in 2004, got him into the senate in 2006, and led him straight to where he is today, just two years hence, on the verge of the US presidency, powered by hundreds of millions of untraceable overseas contributions.

In the minds of the leftist and Islamic leaders, he is the heir to the throne of "freedom fighters", the revolutionary prodigal son – heir to legacy of black powers and black Islam — come home to rule.

Nothing short of a DNA test is going to prove who Obama Jr.'s father really is, or, indeed who is real mother is, or is not. His long-suppressed birth certificate, which he wrote about possessing in Dreams from my Father and which Hawaii now admits is on file, could help solve the mystery.

No one to my knowledge has explored the possibility that Stanley Ann may not be the birth-mother. That would explain the lack of hospital records in Honolulu and the fact that no one can remember seeing her pregnant. Suddenly she just appeared in Washington state with a little baby boy.

There is, too, a curious comment that Stanley Ann Dunham reportedly made after high school, remembered by a friend, that "I don't need to get married or date to have a baby." And the fact that in June 1960 her family – who were reportedly highly sympathetic with left-wing causes — suddenly left Washington state for Hawaii, where they continued to be involved with socialist-communist causes and personalities, such as Frank Marshall Davis (identified by Obama only as "Frank" in Obama's Dreams from my Father), who proved so influential in his upbringing.

There is also new information, published in Atlas Shrugs and confirmed elsewhere, from the University of Hawaii that she was only enrolled only in the fall of 1960, and that from the Fall of 1961 (weeks after Barack Jr. was reportedly born) and through the following spring, she was enrolled at the University of Washington.

There is the fact that she abandoned this baby on repeated occasions, and the fact that Obama returned the favored when he refused to visit her as she sickened and died. If she was merely his foster mother, then she was just a means to an end, to be discarded when she had outlived her usefulness.

If Barack Hussein Obama II is Malcolm X's biological son and ideological heir, it would uniquely explain the mystery of why he was so generously helped by so many Arab and communist "friends in high places" long before he was a "somebody."

Malcolm ensured his secret son would learn the ways of Islam, of revolution, tutored by the finest socialist ideologues of his time, and the future, funded by Saudi and Syrian financiers. He would be groomed for leadership, educated and trained to organize the community called the United States of America.

Malcolm broke with Elijah Muhammad in large measure because the then-leader of the Nation of Islam had conducted illicit affairs and sired illegitimate children. If Malcolm himself had sired a boy, it is not something he would have wanted to advertise, or to bring along with him in his hectic and dangerous revolutionary path. But he may well have arranged to give the boy a first-class upbringing and education, free from the burden of his own violent legacy, his history as a convicted felon, his likely fate as a martyr, to realize the legacy he never could. He knew he was "a walking dead man," marked for death — how could he perpetuate his principles beyond the grave?

Malcolm X was marginalized even from the black leadership after he said, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that the "chickens had come home to roost." That term would be resurrected by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, much to Obama's chagrin, in a sermon discussing the reasons for the Islamic attacks on the United States, reasons that Obama echoed in his own post-9/11 statements, in somewhat less inflammatory terms.

Malcolm himself was assassinated in 1965, reportedly by agents from the Nation of Islam.

If indeed Obama is not just Malcolm's spiritual son but his biological one as well, it would represent the realization of a lifelong preparation to seize power, not by guns but by genes, and the genius of Obama's handlers, mentors and assistants along the way who prepared his path to power.

According to this scenario, the sleeper agent is now wide awake, although it is also conceivable that Obama himself may not be fully aware of the role he was programmed to play. Nor is it clear who has supplanted his initial handlers — which my source identified as East German and Syrian — although the Saudis and their allies, including those within the US government and not just the Democratic side of the aisle, clearly seem implicated with pulling some of the strings and pouring some of the huge funding that has brought him to where he is today.

Those who have helped him reach to the threshold of power — some knowingly and some "useful idiots" — have been working in concert to fulfill the revolutionary goals of Malcolm's by putting his boy in power, using the system to destroy the system. Early voting. ACORN. Untraceable online funds. Brilliant. But that, of course, is just the means to the end.

Barack Obama wrote, in Dreams from My Father, of the huge impact this black revolutionary hero's memoir had on him, as none others did: “Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me." Self-creation indeed.

If Malcolm X secretly sired Barack Obama, then the title Dreams from My Father would indeed take on a whole new meaning, with Obama Sr. revealed as a kind of paternal proxy, a stand-in for a revolutionary of a higher spiritual and political order whose identity the self-creating son could never reveal if his own ambitions, and his real father's ambitions for him, were to be realized.

In 1964, the year before his death, Malcolm gave an address, "Ballots or Bullets" (audio available here) in which he urged African Americans to turn away from violence and create revolutionary change through the US electoral system.

If the O is in fact an X, and wins the red, white and blue tic-tac-toe on Tuesday to become the President and Commander in Chief of the United States then, truly, America's chickens will have come home to roost.

Red States may soon take on a whole new meaning.

Netiquette: Please replicate up to three paragraphs from this article. Link back to: http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-so…

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Now that we have a couple years of experience with big O, maybe this article makes more sense: maybe he’s big X.

I would not put anything past him, and he won’t quit till the cows come home. Money talks and B.S. walks!

Just think what we could do if a hundred million Americans had the courage to stand up and demand his deportation.

James P. Harvey

Castastropic Collaspe of America

January 9th, 2011 by

 

Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

 

COMMENTARY by an Attorney:
    Mr. Slavo is correct, and so is Karl Denninger, but they both miss an important point.   It is true that if the debt ceiling is extended, it will only increase our already unpayable debt to the banksters, and postpone the inevitable economic disaster, i.e., collapse of the economic system or transition to a hyper inflationary economy—which will result in the same collapse, ala, Weimar Republic 1922.
   But Geithner knows that increasing the debt to the banksters is exactly what is intended.  He and his bankster cronies intend to keep this racket rolling as long as possible, so that they can suck the last ounce of life blood (in the form of interest on unpayable debt) from the economy of the USA. 

     What they are not saying is this:  The USG, through the U.S. Treasury is empowered legally by the U.S. Constitution, to issue ITS OWN currency and credit.   The reason why the country is in such a mess is the USG gave that power away in 1913 when, by act of Congress. the Federal Reserve was created.  It has been downhill ever since.  The result?  We have been paying billions in interest to this organized criminal conspiracy on money that never existed.  And yes, it is a criminal conspiracy.   As David Icke loves to say "We are up to our necks in debt, on money that has never, does not, and NEVER will exist.   The alleged debt that we owe to the banksters was literally created "out of thin air."  It is just a book keeping entry. 

        Mr. Geithner knows very well the power of the USG but would not dare to mention this alternative.  Every national leader who has ever tried to wean the U.S. from these parasites has been dealt with harshly.  John F. Kennedy comes immediately to mind.   

Confirmed: We’re Literally On the Brink of Catastrophic Collapse

Author: Mac Slavo

– January 6th, 2011

 We’ve been told a lot of things since the global economic crisis first became apparent in 2007. In March of that year Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said, “the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the sub-prime markets seems likely to be contained.” Clearly, Mr. Bernanke’s assessment was incorrect and the sub-prime real estate issues were only part of a broader, systemic issue.

The fundamental problems within our economy became mainstream news in the latter part of 2008 when stock markets around the world were in free fall and most major financial institutions were on the cusp of insolvency. In response, our government, with the full support and confidence of Congress, took unprecedented steps to save the system by injecting, first billions, and then trillions of dollars to bailout failed companies, stabilize deflationary price collapses and stimulate the economy.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson eventually wrote a book about the crisis, aptly titled On the Brink. But how close to the brink were we? If Representative Brad Sherman is to be believed, we were close. So close, in fact, that according to Sherman, Congressional members were told that if the bailout was not authorized by Congress the collapse would be so severe that martial law may have to be declared – basically, tanks in the streets. The following short video is Brad Sherman discussing the situation on the House floor:

Are we now to believe that the actions taken by Congress, The President, US Treasury and The Federal Reserve have resolved the fundamental problems facing our nation?

For those 17% of people who think the economy is in recovery and the other 33% who believe it will happen soon, we point you to the latest statement from current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitherner, who outlines the severity of the problem in a January 6, 2011 letter to Congress writes:

I am writing in response to your request for an estimate by the Treasury Department of when the statutory debt limit will be reached, and for a description of the consequences of default by the United States.

Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades. Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible. For these reasons, I am requesting that Congress act to increase the limit early this year, well before the threat of default becomes imminent.

Treasury would prefer not to have to engage again in any of these extraordinary measures [suspension of the issuance of certain types of government debt and government investment vehicles]. If we are forced to do so again, these measures could delay the date by which the limit is reached by several weeks. Once these steps have been taken, no remaining legal and prudent measures would be available to create additional headroom under the debt limit, and the United States would begin to default on its obligations.

The Treasury Secretary of The United States of America just said that if we don’t get another $1 trillion or so dollars by March of this year then this country will begin to default on its debt obligations. These remarks are extremely serious and should be understood for what they are.

We are, literally and without mixing words, on the brink of economic catastrophe.

The scary thing is, according to Mr. Geithner and the many supporters of raising our debt ceiling, that borrowing more money is the only solution available.

In a recent commentary we pointed out the opposing view from Karl Denninger of Market Ticker, who said that raising the debt ceiling would essentially lead to the very same consequence as leaving it as is:

Let me be clear: If you extend the debt ceiling and by doing so allow deficits of this sort to continue for another year, say much less two, you will have placed a loaded shotgun in the mouth of this nation and pulled the trigger.

It will go off, and you will splatter this nations’ economic and political system all over the wall.

It’s a Catch 22 and there’s no way out.

Defaulting on or inflating away our debt are the only viable solutions. Both of these will lead to the same end – a complete and total collapse of the way of life Americans have become used to.

Just as Henry Paulson, President Bush, et. al. warned of economic collapse and depression in 2008, Mr. Geithner warns of the very same today. All of the trillions spent, all of the laws passed, and all of the manipulations of global asset markets, have done absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental systemic problems we faced prior to the onset of the crisis.

It is, quite literally, going to be the end of the world as we know it – and it cannot be stopped.

It’s time for each individual to take steps to prepare for a national debt default and a complete debasement of the US dollar. It won’t be long before we either can’t meet our debt obligations or our creditors finally put a stop to our out of control borrowing. And when they do, the chances are high that we will experience a hyperinflationary monetary collapse, complete with disruptions to the normal flow of commerce, food shortages and out of control prices. The only refuge will be to understand what is money when the system collapses and start preparing now. The government is getting ready for it, so should you.

More Recommended Reading:

There’s an Economic Collapse Coming to This Country – Plan Now

I Want People to Be Mentally Prepared For What’s Coming Our Way

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse *Video*

Author:Mac Slavo
Date: January 6th, 2011
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

Evil at work – Who Is George Soros?

January 8th, 2011 by

 

Evil at work – Who Is George Soros?

 https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=b1ffd05f6f&view=pt&search=inbox&th=12d61ad040ffeae2
 
 We’ve all heard his name, we know of his association with Clinton and Obama. Now here’s the rest of the story…..Read about EVIL at work.

Who Is George Soros?   He brought the stock market down in 2 days.  Here is what CBS’ Steve Kroft’s research turned up.  It took 4 months to put it together. “The main obstacle to a “stable” and “just” world order, is the wealth and sovereignty of the United States” according to Mr. Soros.

 What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience.  He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to do social engineering (change cultures). György Schwartz, better known  as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in  Hungary.   Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto a language invented in 1887 and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.

 When Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in  Hungary , to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population.  Soros went with him on his rounds. Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”  70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary , nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year, yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.

 During an interview with “Sixty Minutes”  Soros was asked about his “best” year.  
KROFT:  My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS:  Yes.  
KROFT:  Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.
SOROS:  Yes.  That’s right.  
KROFT:  I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years.  Was it difficult?
SOROS:  No, not at all.  Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.
KROFT:  No feeling of guilt?
SOROS:  No, only feelings of absolute power.

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”  Be that as it may, after WWII, Soros attended the  London  School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors.  Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994.

 Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism. Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.  (Then again, I could be wrong about that.) The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.”

In 1956 Soros moved to  New York City , where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune.  He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation. Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune.  By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets and became known as the man who broke the Bank of  England .  He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically, almost overnight.”

In 1994 Soros crowed in “The  New  Republic ” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.”  The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.”  The “Soros Empire” indeed.  In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of  Thailand and  Malaysia.   At the time,&n bsp; Malaysia ’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.”

Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula.  He sucks the blood from the people.” The website Greek National Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled  Yugoslavia and caused trouble in  Georgia ,  Ukraine and  Myanmar [  Burma ].  Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the  New World Order while promoting his own financial gain.  He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading.  Soros was fined 29 million dollars. Recently, his native  Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.”  Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized.  [Soros'] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite.  His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach. But what about  America?  Soros told  Australia ’s national newspaper “The Australian”  ” America , as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world.  This is now over.  The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.  He implied that he was the one with the power to bringros:  “World financial crisis was “stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination o f my life’s work .”

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields.  Obama’s largesse towards Brazil came shortly after his political financial backer, George Soros, invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).  Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and  Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the  U.S.   The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence.”

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is www www.SorosWatch.com  Their mission:  “This blog is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros.  Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same:  the destructive power of greed without conscience.  We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world’s poor, that justice will be served.”

Back to  America.  Soros has been actively working to destroy  America from the inside out for some years now.  People have been warning us.  Two years ago news sources reported that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on.  This is off-the-chart dangerous.” In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change  or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people.  His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license.  His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements.”

Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe.  Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.  Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years.  The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration. DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good s ource) writes, “By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in  Slovakia ,  Croatia ,  Georgia, and  Yugoslavia . 

When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government, a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises.  The Shadow Party he has built in  America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.” November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the  U.S. ) should do after taking office  “I think we need a large stimulus package.”  Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that “I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence.  The  U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.” Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars.  According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.  In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.  When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.

In 2008, Soros donated $50,000,000 plus to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama’s win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist. George has been contributing almost  $1 billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the scene. Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me.  And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA. 

And I mustn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influence most of the MSM.  Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro’s NEMESIS.

As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”

Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America ’s traditional Western values.  His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering.”

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are:  MoveOn.org, the Apollo  Alliance , Media Matters for  America , the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In  America ), La Raza, and many more.

For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org. Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.” Without Soro’s money, would the Saul Alinsky’s  Chicago machine still be rolling?  Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefariou s activities?  Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government?  Would our college campuses still be retirement h omes for 1960s radicals?

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros.   Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the way. The words of Patrick Henry are apropos:  “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago.  It’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage an d heart.

++++++++++++++++++
Dr Leonard Coldwell
Board Certified NMD DNM PHD LCHC CNHP DIP.PHC
www.drleonardcoldwell.com

www.theonlyanswertotyranny.com
www.instinctbasedmedicine.com
www.theonlyanswertocancer.com
http://thedrcoldwellreport.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/drleonardcoldwell

BASIC MATH SAYS WE ARE TOAST

January 8th, 2011 by

 

by Dr. Beaman, Family Physician

 January 3, 2011

 So the Tea Party is here to reverse the spending mistakes of the past fifty years, eh?  I don't see how they expect to accomplish any such thing, given the basic math involved.
 
We have a $13 TRILLION dollar debt that is generating an additional $4 billion dollars in interest every single day of the year, so $4b X 365 days a year equals $1.460 TRILLION dollars more in debt each year, and the last time I checked that was more than all annual government income sources combined.
 
Our best & brightest minds in government tell us that reducing the annual federal budget by $200 billion dollars is going to accomplish something, but that would only reduce the annual national interest to $1.260 TRILLION dollars without making a dent in the existing debt.
 
We're toast.  Economically, the United States is already dead, but the nerves are still twitching.
 
I had a semi-heated conversation with a relative over the holidays that left my mind spinning in slack-jawed neutral.  According to him, Obama Care will cost health insurance consumers less, and he insisted that all arguments for and against the cost theory are merely speculative until the program is fully implemented.  I told him that it is not speculation to predict that two plus two will equal four next week, nor is it speculation to predict that five plus five will still equal ten next year: It is basic math; it is the universal language, and it NEVER lies.
 
Oh by the way, following that semi-heated conversation, my wife was notified that her health insurance premiums for Anthem Blue Cross are going up 18%, from $343.00 per month to $410.00 per month, and that is for a catastrophic plan with a $5,000.00 deductible!  The reason?  Obama Care!  Among other mandates, Obama Care requires insurance on dependent children up to age 26 now, and all preventative care must be provided by the plan @100% with no deductible.  Here is today's Carl Worden Intelligence Test:  If existing insurance contracts were not required to provide certain benefits before, but they are now, will the insurance industry pass the increased costs on to the insurance consumer?  Here's another tough one:  Does a bear poop in the woods?
 
There were no cost controls included with Obama Care.  There were no ceilings placed on how much an insurance company can charge, and there were no cost controls placed on medical fees or the purchase, lease or rent of medical equipment, so in lieu of such cost controls there is no mathematical conclusion that can be made other than the fact that health insurance premiums will be driven higher to the point everyone will eventually demand a single federal government health care solution — and that was Obama's goal all along.  My question has always been this:  When all private insurance companies are finally driven out of business by Obama Care, where will all those hundreds of thousands of displaced workers go?  We're talking about a lot more American jobs being lost if the government takes over health care, which is why my mind gets stuck spinning in neutral trying to understand what the heck these people are thinking of.
 
But even if Congress passes a bill to revoke Obama Care tomorrow and even if Obama signed it into law the next day, it won't do anything to stop the economic hemorrhaging caused by Clinton's Free Trade agreements that cost America millions of family-wage-paying manufacturing jobs, and it appears we haven't done anything right since.  We blew the handling of the Wall Street/Housing Bubble by mindlessly throwing money at the problem instead of giving the matter a more cerebral approach, and now we are compounding the problem by extending unemployment benefits to millions of people who would have taken jobs they didn't want, but don't have to for another few months.  In the end, Americans will be forced to accept relatively low-paying jobs because that will be all there is to pick from, and when employment benefits really do come to a screeching halt, people will turn quite mercenary all at once in competition for those jobs.
 
Example:  My wife and I were visiting with a friend and learned that her mother runs a Bridal Store and needed an additional sales person to handle the increased business which always occurs in the bridal business around the holidays for all those June weddings.  We just happen to know someone who worked in a bridal store previously, but who lost her job when the store closed.  She is very people-oriented, enthusiastic and expert in providing the sales and fitting services required, so we recommended her.  Mrs. "D" went to an interview for the job around 11/1/2010 and was hired on the spot — but she told the management that she could not take the job until after January 1, 2011.
 
Now this woman had been "unemployed" for at least 18 months that I know of, maybe longer, and the job being offered her included commission earnings on the merchandise she sold in addition to her salary.  In other words, she was being offered a job potentially paying a very respectable income from all sources, and yet she wouldn't take the job until after the holidays were over?  Why not??  I'll tell you why not:  She was getting paid her full unemployment benefits at the same time as she and her unemployed hubby were making and selling jewelry for Christmas, and it would be mathematically (financially) stupid for her to cast away a steady monthly unemployment income plus all the cash they made, "under-the-table", to take a real job that might or might not work out.
 
If she had no unemployment benefits, the woman would have taken that potentially good-paying job the very next day, and that is WHY you don't extend unemployment benefits beyond a certain deadline.  Now, the same people who just had their unemployment benefits extended are becoming conditioned to the belief that the government will just keep extending unemployment benefits until the economy recovers, which cannot begin to happen until unemployment benefits are cut off and people start accepting jobs they would not consider accepting before.
 
Very few people on unemployment income sit at home catching up on the Soaps.  With about $400.00 per week coming in from the government, it doesn't take much effort to generate additional income, "under-the-table", and there are so many ways to make money on the side that taking a real job paying minimum wage is simply out of the question.  Think about it:  If you made just $200.00 per week tax-free on the side and couple that with your $400.00 per week unemployment benefit, that is an annual income of over $31,000.00, with 1/3 of it tax free.  Oregon's minimum wage is now $8.50 per hour, which comes to $17,680.00 annually and is all taxable.  Worden's Intelligence Quiz further asks, "What would you do"?
 
But none of this really matters now because it is mathematically too late to do anything to stop the economic hemorrhaging and prevent our ultimate economic death as a nation.  The feds will keep extending unemployment benefits as long as they have money to print because they know there will be rioting, fighting and destruction just like what is happening in Greece if they don't.  That is a really bad reason to keep unemployment benefits going, but if you are a politician with an eye on the gallows that are awaiting you, you'd keep those benefits going as long as it takes to make sure your own interests are met (like having someplace offshore to hide) before those benefits are cut off and all Hell breaks loose here like it has in Europe.  But unlike our European brethren, we Americans are armed to the teeth and we are fully capable of violently overthrowing the government, so the problem facing our leaders is quite a bit more complex, to say the least.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to

high office.  

Aesop –  620 to 560 B.C., 27 centuries ago.

Some things never change.

Reexamining Democracy

January 5th, 2011 by

 

The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/1654/Tibor-Machan-Reexamining-Democracy.html

Reexamining Democracy

 

Dr. Tibor Machan  01 04 11

Over the last several decades of American political life the idea of liberty has taken a back seat to that of democracy. Liberty involves human beings governing themselves, being sovereign citizens, while democracy is a method by which decisions are reached within groups. In a just society it is liberty that is primary – the entire point of law is to secure liberty for everyone, to make sure that the rights of individuals to their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness is protected from any human agent bent on violating them. Democracy is but a byproduct of liberty. Because we are all supposed to be free to govern ourselves, whenever some issue of public policy faces the citizenry, they are all entitled to take part. Democratic government rests, in a free society, on the right of every individual to take whatever actions are needed to influence public policy.

Because freedom or liberty is primary, the scope of public policy and, thus, of democracy in a just society is strictly limited. The reason is that free men and women may not be intruded on even if a majority of their fellows would decide to do so. If one is free, which means a self-governing person, then, even the majority of ones fellows lack the authority to take over ones governance without ones consent. This is what the US Declaration of Independence means when it mentions that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In a just society no one loses his or her authority for self-government without giving it up as a matter of choice. No one gets to operate on you, no matter how wise and competent, without you giving your consent, and the same is true, in a just system, about imposing duties and obligations on people. They must agree to this. If they do not, they are not to be forced to comply. The only apparent exception is when it comes to laws that protect everyone's rights. One may indeed be ordered not to kill, rob, rape, burglarize, and assault other persons, even if one fails to consent to this. And when the legal authorities do this job of protecting individual rights, they may order one to abstain from all such aggressive actions.

However, this doesn't actually involve intruding on people, only being duly authorized, via the consent of the governed, to protect everyone from intrusions. It is along these lines that the idea of limited government – or legal authority – arises: it may only act to protect rights, to impose the laws that achieve that goal, nothing more. Again, as the Declaration of Independence notes, it is to secure our rights that governments are instituted, not for any other purpose. Of course, this idea of limited government hardly figures into considerations of public policy in the USA or elsewhere. We have never actually confined government to this clearly limited, just purpose. It has always gone beyond that and today its scope is nearly totalitarian (albeit somewhat "permissive"), the very opposite of being limited. But there is no doubt that even though liberty has been nearly forgotten as an ideal of just government in America as well as elsewhere, democracy does remain something of an operational ideal. In this way liberty has been curtailed tremendously, mainly to the minor sphere of everyone having a right to take part in public decision-making. Whereas the original classical liberal idea is that we are free in all realms and democracy concerns mainly who will administer a system of laws that are required to protect our liberty, the corrupt version of this idea is that democracy addresses everything in our lives and the only liberty we have left is to take part in the decision-making about whatever is taken to be a so called "public" matter.

One way this is clearly evident is how many of the top universities in the USA construe public administration to be a topic having to do primarily with the way democracy works. Indeed, after the demise of the Soviet Union, even though the major issue should have been the establishment and maintenance of a regime of individual liberty, the experts in academe who write and teach the rest of the world about public administration are nearly all focused on democracy, not on liberty.

For example, the courses at America's premier public administration graduate school, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, are mainly focused on problems of democracy. At this institution nearly 40 percent of the students attending come from 75 foreign countries, many of them from those that used to be under Soviet rule, and what they focus on in nearly all their courses is democracy, not liberty.Assignments in these courses tend  to raise problems about implementing democratic governance and leave the issue of how individual liberty should be secured as practically irrelevant. Or, to put it more precisely, the liberty, or human right, that is of interest in most of these courses is the liberty to take part in democratic decision-making. ("Human rights" has come to refer in most of these courses and their texts mainly to the right to vote and to take part in the political process!)

Yes, of course, that is a bit of genuine liberty that many of the people of the world have never enjoyed, so for them it is a significant matter, to be sure. But it is clearly not the liberty that the Declaration of Independence mentions when it affirms that all of us are equal in having unalienable rights to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.The Declaration speaks of a very wide scope of individual liberty, while the premier public administration school of America teaches, at least by implication, that the only liberty of any importance is the liberty to take part in public policy determination.

This, I submit, is a travesty.Once democracy is treated as the premier public value, with individual liberty cast to the side except as far as the citizenry's freedom to take part in democratic decision-making, the scope of government is no longer limited in principle or in practice. Nearly anything can become a public policy issue, so long as some measure of democracy is involved in reaching decisions about it. And that, in fact, turns out to be a serious threat to democracy itself. Because when democracy trumps liberty, democracy can destroy itself, and the law could permit the democratically reached destruction of democracy itself!

That is just what happened in the Weimar Republic, where a democratic election put Hitler in power and destroyed democracy.If you ever wonder why it is that public forums, including the Sunday TV magazine programs, the Op Ed pages of most newspapers, the feature articles of most magazines do not discuss human liberty but fret mostly about democracy, this is the reason: the major educational institutions tend not to care about liberty at all and have substituted a very limited version of it, namely, democracy, as their primary concern. Once that is accomplished, individual liberty becomes defenseless.    

Indeed, democracy is just as capable of being totalitarian as is a dictatorship, only with democracy it seems less clearly unjust, given that this little bit of liberty is still in tact, namely, to take part in the vote. (A little of this has come to be discussed recently on some programs because of Harvard educated Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria's recent book, The Future of Freedom [W. W. Norton, 2003], which is subtitled "illiberal democracy at home and abroad." Sadly Zakaria seems to have abandoned his concerns about the matter and is now mostly taking part in discussions about how the country ought to be managed, like a firm.) True enough, democratic totalitarianism appears more benign than a system under the direction of a tyrant but, as In Venezuela, unrestrained democracy can give rise to the most belligerent version of dictatorship since Hitler's Third Reich. The proper approach to governance is to make all of it focus primarily on protecting the rights of the citizens to their lives, liberty and property.This extension of the idea of the body or security guard is the best model for how government should work and how their work should be appraised. Free men and women require this so as to live their lives by their own judgment and in voluntary cooperation with their fellow citizens instead of being regimented by some group of "leaders" who view themselves as knowledgeable about the public interest.

In caring about democracy mainly or only, the more robust liberty that everyone is entitled to is neglected. The result is not all that different from how feudal orders behave.

OldDog says, Exquisite presentation!

Report from Iron Mountain; Using fear to make people subservient to government.

December 30th, 2010 by

 

© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin

The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of collectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain. Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.

The self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to “stabilize society.” Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soon reveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government. Furthermore, the word stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and prevent them from rebelling. It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. The study did not address questions of right or wrong; nor did it deal with such concepts as freedom or human rights. Ideology was not an issue, nor patriotism, nor religious precepts. Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government. The Report said:

Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, the desirability of maximum health and longevity, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “…it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (1)

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)

A NEW DEFINITION OF PEACE

The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)

Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.

A SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERY

On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions. The Report says:

We will examine … the time-honored use of military institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. … The current euphemistic clichés – “juvenile delinquency” and “alienation” – have had their counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement. …

Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social service workers. …

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. … It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service. (4)

BLOOD GAMES

The Report considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied with non-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debate or resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comedies could play an important role, but blood games were considered to be the most promising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individuals or teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariously work off their frustrations. As a minimum, these events must evoke a passionate team loyalty on the part of the fans and must include the expectation of pain and injury on the part of the players. Even better for their purpose is the spilling of blood and the possibility of death. The common man has a morbid fascination for violence and blood. Crowds gather to chant “Jump! Jump!” at the suicidal figure on a hotel roof. Cars slow to a near stop on the highway to gawk at broken bodies next to a collision.

A schoolyard fight instantly draws a circle of spectators. Boxing matches and football games and hockey games and automobile races are telecast daily, attracting millions of cheering fans who give rapt attention to each moment of danger, each angry blow to the face, each broken bone, each knockout, each carrying away of the unconscious or possibly dying contestant. In this fashion, their anger at “society” is defused and focused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circuses and gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.

Before jumping to the conclusion that such concepts are absurd in modern times, recall that during the 1985 European soccer championship in Belgium, the spectators became so emotionally involved in the contest that a bloody riot broke out in the bleachers leaving behind 38 dead and more that 400 injured. U.S. News & World Report gives this account:

The root of the trouble: A tribal loyalty to home teams that surpasses an obsession and, say some experts, has become a substitute religion for many. The worst offenders include members of gangs such as Chelsea’s Anti-Personnel Firm, made up of ill-educated young males who find in soccer rivalry an escape from boredom.

Still, the British do not have a patent on soccer violence. On May 26, eight people were killed and more than 50 injured in Mexico City,… a 1964 stadium riot in Lima, Peru, killed more than 300 – and a hotly disputed 1969 match between El Salvador and Honduras led to a week-long shooting war between the two countries, causing hundreds of casualties.

The U.S. is criticized for the gridiron violence of its favorite sport, football, but outbursts in the bleachers are rare because loyalties are spread among many sports and national pride is not at stake. Said Thomas Tutko, professor of psychology at California’s San Jose State University: “In these other countries, it used to be their armies. Now it’s their competitive teams that stir passions.” (5)

Having considered all the ramifications of blood games, The Report from Iron Mountain concluded that they were not an adequate substitute for war. It is true that violent sports are useful distracters and do, in fact, allow an outlet for boredom and fierce group loyalty, but their effect on the nation’s psyche could not match the intensity of war hysteria. Until a better alternative could be found, world government would have to be postponed so that nations could continue to wage war.

FINDING A CREDIBLE GLOBAL THREAT

In time of war, most citizens uncomplainingly accept their low quality of life and remain fiercely loyal to their leaders. If a suitable substitute for war is to be found, then it must also elicit that same reaction. Therefore, a new enemy must be found that threatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must be just as terrifying as war itself. The Report is emphatic on that point:

Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness. (6)

The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.

Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life.

An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Here is what the report had to say:

Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. (7)

This report was released in 1966 when the idea of an alien presence seemed far fetched to the average person. In the ensuing years, however, that perception has changed. A growing segment of the population now believes that intelligent life forms may exist beyond our planet and could be monitoring our own civilization. Whether that belief is right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that a dramatic encounter with aliens shown on network television – even if it were to be entirely fabricated by high-tech computer graphics or laser shows in the sky – could be used to stampede all nations into world government supposedly to defend the Earth from invasion. On the other hand, if the aliens were perceived to have peaceful intent, an alternative scenario would be to form world government to represent a unified human species speaking with a single voice in some kind of galactic federation. Either scenario would be far more credible today than in 1966.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION MODEL

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.

Did The Report from Iron Mountain really say that? It certainly did – and much more. Here are just a few of the pertinent passages:

When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. …

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose. … But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented. (8)

AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORT

The Report from Iron Mountain states that it was produced by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. One member of the group, however, felt the Report was too important to be kept under wraps. He was not in disagreement with its conclusions. He merely believed that more people should read it. He delivered his personal copy to Leonard Lewin, a well-known author and columnist who, in turn, negotiated its publication by Dial Press. It was then reprinted by Dell Publishing.

This was during the Johnson Administration, and the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs was CFR member Walt Rostow. Rostow was quick to announce that the report was a spurious work. Herman Kahn, CFR director of the Hudson Institute, said it was not authentic. The Washington Post – which was owned and run by CFR member Katharine Graham – called it “a delightful satire.” Time magazine, founded by CFR-member Henry Luce, said it was a skillful hoax.

Then, on November 26, 1967, the Report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR, said that he knew firsthand of the Report’s authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the Report, he agreed totally with its conclusions. He wrote:

As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservations relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public. (9)

Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was “a member of the conspiracy.”(10)

That, however, did not settle the issue. The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his “conspiracy” statement, he replied: “For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation. … Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce.” (11)

The reporter who conducted the original interview was embarrassed by the allegation and did further research. Six days later, this is what he reported: Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange:

Interviewer: “Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?”

Galbraith: “I was in general a member of the conspiracy but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword – Mr. Lewin.” (12)

So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the Report but denied that he wrote it. Then who did? Was it Leonard Lewin, after all? In 1967 he said he did not. In 1972 he said that he did. Writing in The New York Times Book Review Lewin explained: “I wrote the ‘Report,” all of it. … What I intended was simply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way.” (13)

But wait! A few years before that, columnist William F. Buckley told the New York Times that he was the author. That statement was undoubtedly made tongue-in-cheek, but who and what are we to believe? Was it written by Herman Kahn, John Kenneth Galbraith, Dean Rusk, Clare Booth Luce, Leonard Lewin, or William F. Buckley?

In the final analysis, it makes little difference. The important point is that The Report from Iron Mountain, whether written as a think-tank study or a political satire, explains the reality that surrounds us. Regardless of its origin, the concepts presented in it are now being implemented in almost every detail. All one has to do is hold the Report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major trend in American life is conforming to the blueprint. So many things that otherwise are incomprehensible suddenly become clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecology hysteria. The Report from Iron Mountain is an accurate summary of the plan that has already created our present. It is now shaping our future.

ENVIRONMENTALISM A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR

It is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictions of environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent “scientific studies.” But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and the assumptions upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. There is just enough truth in the fact of environmental pollution to make predictions of planetary doom in the year two-thousand-something seem believable. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to clamp down on those nasty industries. No one questions the damage done to the economy or the nation. It makes no difference when the very planet on which we live is sick and dying. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.

While the followers of the environmental movement are preoccupied with visions of planetary doom, let us see what the leaders are thinking. The first Earth Day was proclaimed on April 22, 1970, at a “Summit” meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended by environmentalists and politicians from all over the world. A publication widely circulated at that meeting was entitled the Environmental Handbook. The main theme of the book was summarized by a quotation from Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk, a member of the CFR. Falk wrote that there are four interconnected threats to the planet – wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion of resources. Then he said: “The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of the sovereign states to manage the affairs of mankind in the twentieth century.” (14)

The Handbook continued the CFR line by asking these rhetorical questions: “Are nation-states actually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a single afternoon?… What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind of human organization – more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of some of our hard-won liberties?” (15)

In 1989, the CFR-owned Washington Post published an article written by CFR member George Kennan in which he said: “We must prepare instead for … an age where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union, but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.” (16)

On March 27, 1990, in the CFR-controlled New York Times, CFR member Michael Oppenheimer wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. … as the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.” (17)

CFR member, Lester Brown, heads up another think tank called the Worldwatch Institute. In the Institute’s annual report, entitled State of the World 1991, Brown said that “the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of the new world order.” (18)

In the official publication of the 1992 Earth Summit, we find this: “The world community now faces together greater risks to our common security through our impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.”

How many times does it have to be explained? The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.

HUMANITY ITSELF IS THE TARGET

The Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-of-world scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Their membership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFR members as Jimmy Carter, Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz. Their solution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, if necessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced at Iron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disaster could be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind its program. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. (19)

Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility of controlling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimate bureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, then humanity itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressed it thus:

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. … War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. …

A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government. … It will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishments of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population, it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. (21)

Very compelling, indeed. These quiet-spoken collectivists are not kidding around. For example, one of the most visible “environmentalists” and advocate of population control was Jacques Cousteau. Interviewed by the United Nations UNESCO Courier in November of 1991, Cousteau spelled it out. He said:

What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It is a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it, but it is just as bad not to say it. (22)

GORBACHEV BECOMES AN ECOLOGY WARRIOR

We can now understand how Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly the leader of one of the most repressive governments the world has known, became head of a new organization called the International Green Cross, which supposedly is dedicated to environmental issues. Gorbachev has never denounced collectivism, only the label of a particular brand of collectivism called Communism. His real interest is not ecology but world government with himself assured a major position in the collectivist power structure. In a public appearance in Fulton, Missouri, he praised the Club of Rome, of which he is a member, for its position on population control. Then he said:

One of the worst of the new dangers is ecological. … Today, global climatic shifts; the greenhouse effect; the “ozone hole”; acid rain; contamination of the atmosphere, soil and water by industrial and household waste; the destruction of the forests; etc. all threaten the stability of the planet. (23)

Gorbachev proclaimed that global government was the answer to these threats and that the use of government force was essential. He said: “I believe that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures … authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion.” (24)

Here is an arch criminal who fought his way up through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party, became the protégé of Yuri Andropov, head of the dreaded KGB, was a member of the USSR’s ruling Politburo throughout the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and who was selected by the Politburo in 1985 as the supreme leader of world Communism. All of this was during one of the Soviet’s most dismal periods of human-rights violations and subversive activities against the free world. Furthermore, he ruled over a nation with one of the worst possible records of environmental destruction. At no time while he was in power did he ever say or do anything to show concern over planet Earth.

All that is now forgotten. Gorbachev has been transformed by the CFR-dominated media into an ecology warrior. He is calling for world government and telling us that such a government will use environmental issues as justification for sanctions and other “measures of compulsion.” We cannot say that we were not warned.

U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSOR

The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:

In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst problems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable. (25)

Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:

Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S. (26)

Who is this Maurice Strong who sees the United States as the environmental aggressor against the world? Does he live in poverty? Does he come from a backward country that is resentful of American prosperity? Does he himself live in modest circumstances, avoiding consumption in order to preserve our natural resources? None of the above. He is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He lives and travels in great comfort. He is a lavish entertainer. In addition to having great personal wealth derived from the oil industry in Canada – which he helped nationalize – Maurice Strong was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio; head of the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm; the first Secretary-General of the UN Environment Program; president of the World Federation of United Nations; co-chairman of the World Economic Forum; member of the Club of Rome; trustee of the Aspen Institute; and a director of the World Future Society. That is probably more than you wanted to know about this man, but it is necessary in order to appreciate the importance of what follows.

A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISIS

Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems can be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.

This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel Wood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southern Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller, Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara, and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.

During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and real events. Wood continues the story:

Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …

“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says. (27)

Maurice Strong’s fanciful plot probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously, at least in terms of a literal reading of future events. It is unlikely they will unfold in exactly that manner – although it is not impossible. For one thing, it would not be necessary to hold the leaders of the industrialized nations at gun point. They would be the ones engineering this plot. Leaders from Third-World countries do not have the means to cause a global crisis. That would have to come from the money centers in New York, London, or Tokyo. Furthermore, the masterminds behind this thrust for global government have always resided in the industrialized nations. They have come from the ranks of the CFR in America and from other branches of the International Roundtable in England, France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. They are the ideological descendants of Cecil Rhodes and they are fulfilling his dream.

It is not important whether or not Maurice Strong’s plot for global economic collapse is to be taken literally. What is important is that men like him are thinking along those lines. As Wood pointed out, they are in a position to do it. Or something like it. If it is not this scenario, they will consider another one with similar consequences. If history has proven anything, it is that men with financial and political power are quite capable of heinous plots against their fellow men. They have launched wars, caused depressions, and created famines to suit their personal agendas. We have little reason to believe that the world leaders of today are more saintly than their predecessors.

Furthermore, we must not be fooled by pretended concern for Mother Earth. The call-to-arms for saving the planet is a gigantic ruse. There is just enough truth to environmental pollution to make the show “credible,” as The Report from Iron Mountain phrased it, but the end-of-earth scenarios which drive the movement forward are bogus. The real objective in all of this is world government, the ultimate doomsday mechanism from which there can be no escape. Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.

***********

by G. Edward Griffin.

It may be obtained at www.realityzone.com.

 

OLDDOGD COMMENTS

 

Unless the masses start learning to compare EVENTS, (both past and present) to the information distributed by the patriot community, then you have just read your future.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues

http://www.realityzone.com/

MUST READ: THE FULL REPORT BELOW

http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

SHALL WE DO EVIL BECAUSE WE ARE OUTNUMBERED?

December 27th, 2010 by

SHALL WE DO EVIL BECAUSE WE ARE

OUTNUMBERED?

12 27 10

By OldDog

 

Incredibly, most people seem incapable of examining both sides of issues that affects society before committing to one uninformed opinion or another; human nature then produces a majority of uninformed citizens who demand that superior numbers prove their opinion is right, and the minority should conform to them. Please correct me if Im wrong, but isn’t this insanely arrogant and obnoxious event called Democracy?

Another equally obnoxious group believes that everyone should be grateful to live in a country where a group of people gets paid obscene amounts of money from private interest to pass laws written by these private interest groups, at the expense of everyone else. They actually believe that, we the people want a government whose sole purpose is to assist certain people in obtaining control over different areas of commerce. Historically, thieves always succeed in a Republic, and a Democracy is always suicidal.

A lack of attention span of the average reader prevents me from more satirical attacks on other forms of governments, so I will get on with my rant and attempt to elucidate what the end result is going to be.

After the bankers who are financing this seemingly never ending chaos have completely destroyed any and all hope of self government, the world will be governed by appointees of these bankers who ruthlessly apply their will over our every thought, word, and deed. The desire to control our own lives will be forgotten, and we will be willing slaves. If that is not enough to make you vomit, it’s only because you have already been brain washed by the education and media industry and you are not capable of seeing what is right in front of your eyes. Only a massive re-education of a hundred million people can save us.

Considering the consequences of being totally dependent on powerful people for our survival, one would think that every person who reads and believes what is here written would be inspired to commit every resource available, and their life, to preventing this horrible tragedy. Sadly, I have found few who are willing to sacrifice anything for the preservation of a free society. Personal valor seems to be some long forgotten attribute of Heros gone by, and an affluent life-style has become an intellectual aphrodisiac that prevents any higher thought. This is hard to accept from a Nation that has been bull-shitted into believing they were born in the land of the free, and the home of the brave. It seems that Hollywood has had more influence than the Lord God.

Whatever the reason is, Americans are only heroes in their own mind, and their actions do not support their narcissistic opinion of their self. Be that as it may, there are a few who will rise up when the shit hits the fan, and we can expect to be the villains in our country's eyes because they are not inclined to be interrupted in their pursuit of a life of luxury and entertainment. Life is too short when there is no savior!

Although I admit it was a piece of propaganda, I remember a film where Jews were being marched into a gas chamber, but one man had more respect for his self and refused to move, preferring instead a bullet in the brain. Over the years, as I learned about the surreptitious control that the International Bankers have had over America, and their plan for the future, this man's defiance has come to represent the epitome of courage to me and I have resolved to make my death an act of defiance and a personal matter. I want the bastard to see the contempt in my eye's. No cowardly self-destruction or killing of innocent by-standers. I want the man who has defeated me to do it. In the mean time I will do all in my power to incite hatred for the Bankers and their appointed scumbags in the hope that people will once again value their freedom over all other pleasures that this depraved world has to offer, and refuse to do evil just because we are out numbered.

James P. Harvey

THE CROWN TEMPLE BY RULE OF MYSTERY BABYLON

December 26th, 2010 by

 

THE CROWN TEMPLE BY RULE OF MYSTERY BABYLON

http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue27/am77.htm

Michael Edward of the Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community (ECC)
Submitted by Gary Reil 
July 15, 2003

The Templars of the Crown

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the “Crown,” which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown” and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.” From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.

First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple “Church” is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution.

All licensed Bar Attorneys – Attorners (see definitions below) – in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.

The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London – a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800’s, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people. These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the “Crown.” Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers.

The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.

The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery – the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane – a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent “legal” – but totally unlawful – contracts on the American people. The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s judiciary.

Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”
-Matthew 23:27

By what authority has the “Crown” usurped the natural sovereignty of the American people? Is it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in the U.S.A? How can it be considered in any manner as being “constitutional” when this same Supreme Court is appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? As you will soon see, the land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple.

The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London. The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.

Definitions you never knew:

ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.

ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE, n [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

RULE n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.

REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what cannot. 2 [U] the general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode.ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine, LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls, from cortis court. See Court.] 4 A flag; an ensign; — in contempt. [Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple, a house near the Thames, which originally belonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some deity. Among pagans, a building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people assembled to worship. Originally, temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England, the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the Middle Temple. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled; and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.

INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college of municipal or common law professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop or other distinguished personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys, solicitors, etc.

INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an inner chamber; the inner court of a temple or palace. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. — Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. — Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. — Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters patent. 4. Apparent; conspicuous. PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great Britain grants lands, honors and franchises.

PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a thing to a person

LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. – A Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". – 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which anything is already. The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place, matters return to the status quo ante bellum, or are left in statu quo ante bellum, i.e., the state (or, in the state) before the war.
-1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple

Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of the Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle TempleLincoln's Inn, andGray's Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs; secret societies of world power in commerce. They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200’s. The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).

Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations, none of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated – for a definite and purposeful reason: You can’t make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, and their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation. In other words, they exist as secret societies without a public “front door” unless you’re a private member called to their Bar.

While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to steal from Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.

From THE HISTORY OF THE INN, Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the Bar Association franchises and its Crown signatories in America:

“Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn's records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come here until the War of 1812”.

All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or “called to Bar” at any of the King’s Inns. Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made to the Crown Temple.

It’s a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple has publicly acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under solemn oath only to the Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of Independence. This simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the same origin, the Crown Temple. In case you don’t understand the importance of this, there is no international agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful effect, when the same party signs as both the first and second parties. It’s merely a worthless piece of paper with no lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the same. In reality, the American Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an internal memo of the Crown Temple made among its private members.

By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars who was called to their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which was funded by members of the London King’s Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he became a personal aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American Revolution.

In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany, New York, and within six months had completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and was admitted to the New York Bar. Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a franchise of the Crown Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress during the 1782-1783 session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander Hamilton, Esqr. In February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member of, the Bank of New York, the State's first bank.

He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia. In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated “an Executive for life will be an elective Monarch”. When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues withdrew from the Convention in protest, he alone signed the Constitution for the United States of America representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).

One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the people, but a State is a legal entity of the Crown – a Crown Colony. This is an example of the deceptive ways the Crown Temple – Middle Templars – have taken control of America since the beginning of our settlements.

Later, as President Washington’s U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone laid the foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans through Crown banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the Federal Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had never made a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies of Great Britain.

Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony.

Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but “legal”, Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our so-called “judiciary” in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.

The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as “the rule of law”. In reality, it is not about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations. For example, just read what President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the “rule of law:”

“Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law.” – Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on 11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C.

What happened in 1776?

"Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." – Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.

1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called “States” as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done).

The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word “State” to signify a “legal estate of possession.” Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word “states”. By the use of “State,” the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

All “Constitutional Rights” in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a “State Citizen” attempts to invoke his “constitutional”, natural, or common law “rights” in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don’t apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown “law”. Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of God’s Law.

The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by God’s Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn’t legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction).

Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of God into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no “law” within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal “Person” of fictional “status” (another legal term) in order for their legal – but completely unlawful – State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him. Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of “justice” are decided by 3 “judges”. This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts.

“It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.

The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted “independence.” Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution.

To have this “Declaration” recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, “between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States”. The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate “United States”, the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation “Esqr.” following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies “Officers of the King’s Courts”, which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).

The Crown was represented in signature by “David Hartley, Esqr.”, a Middle Templar of the King’s Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was “John Adams, Esqr”, “Benjamin Franklin, Esqr.” and “John Jay, Esqr.” The signatories for the “United States” were also Middle Templars of the King’s Court through Bar Association membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them!

It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part,

“to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects.”

The Crown Colonies were granted to “persons” and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown.

Now, here’s a real catch-all in Article 4:

“It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”

Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can’t begin to describe what had taken place.

So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,

“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit…”

That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton’s U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.

An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.

The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon

Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church.

This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213.charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same,

“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.”

Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.

The following definitions are all taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:

FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty. Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.

FEE, n. [In English, is loan. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.

FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or hereditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.

By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British-English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies in America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the “United States.”

ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate.

Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church, by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land.

CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c. The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter-governments.

By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope.

The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. He who controls the gold controls the world.

The Crown Temple Today

The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious, yet somewhat hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note.

Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple. That’s when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member.

The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple

This is not a mere child’s story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol does “Oz” stand for? Ounces.Gold What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.

The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS legal fiction – a PERSON – the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your Christian birth name. Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a Certificate in place of a brain of common sense.

What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He’s the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as if he was already dead. He’s the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may get a hold of.

The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he was. They act as if they have great courage, but they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to back them up. When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of “official” recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a coward he still was, his official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority. He’s just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.

What about the trip through the field of poppies? They weren’t real people, so drugs had no effect on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged? The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was? Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means “in total, all together; Latin in toto.” Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard’s theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram images were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard of Oz commanded. Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain – the court – (see the definition for curtain above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about.Just an ordinary person controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard’s power and authority. The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed. The Wizard’s game was up. It’s too bad that people don’t realize how loud a bark from a little dog is. How about your bark? Do you just remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, your legal master gives you?

Let’s not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical creature to symbolize the Bar Association Attorners who attack and control all the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz – Gold.

What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court veil for what they really are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage. Then, and most importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only “in toto,” working together as one Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given under God’s Law.

Mystery Babylon Revealed

There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those who discern His Truth:

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
-Revelation 17:5

God has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome, the chief seat of all idolatry, that rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the worship of her idols (see Revelation 17:1-4). The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the Temple throne at the Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of ungodly deities are the Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of commerce.

One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World Order (a Bush family favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the Illuminati, Triad, Triangle, Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the EU, the US, or many dozens of other names. However, they all point to one origin and one beginning. We have traced this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. Because the Pope created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception) and established their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the Pope and his Roman Capitols who control the world.

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication”
-Revelation 17:4

This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His Bishops for the past 1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and silver; the iron and soft metals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are under the control of the Crown Temple; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of Babylon; attended to by his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry.

“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of harlots] sitteth” – Revelation 17:9

The only mention of “seven mountains” within our present-day Bible is at Revelation 17:9, so it’s no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of Christ. The 1611 King James (who was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early church (“church” in Latin ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). This in itself is no mystery as history records the existence and destruction of these early church writings; just as history has now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt, among many other recent Greek language discoveries within the past 100 years.

The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times:

By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
– Hebrews 11:5

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying,"Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
– Jude 1:14-15

The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.

At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries.

The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.

Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added):

[CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead.

6 These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired. 9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.’

[CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled the throne.

[CHAPTER 25] 3 And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgement when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy place shall they enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment, or calamity touch them.’

The present wealth and power of all the world’s gold, silver, tin, bronze, pearls, diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and held in the treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be able to save them at the time of the Lord’s judgment.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
– Matthew 23:13

Where do we go from here?

Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the Kingdom of Heaven? To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained of God, there is an imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil. The problem is, most believe they have the knowledge of God when what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as gods. The only way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek the Knowledge that comes only from God, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim as earthly rulers and gods.

The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world to believe that they are of the Lord God and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom. What they hold within their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the “Holy Church,” but which holy church? The real one or the false one? Are the Pope and his Roman Church the Temple of God, or is this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains?

They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they have applied: The State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman Church is not the church (ekklesia). There is the Crown of the Lord; and a Crown of that which is not of the Lord. All imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes. Those who are truly seeking the genuine Kingdom of God must allow the Lord to show them the discernment between the genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by the Holy Spirit, all will remain fooled by the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the Wizards.

Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
– Luke 17:21

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is within you and it is outside you."
– Gospel of Thomas 3

Don’t you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God lives in you?
– 1 Corinthians 3:16

Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]
– Gospel of Thomas 5


See THE VATICAN CONNECTION TO ENGLAND, A CONTINUATION OF ROMAN CONQUEST

See The Official International Knights Templar Website

Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community (ECC)

MERRY CHRISTMAS from A NATION BEGUILED

December 25th, 2010 by

Merry Christmas

 

from A Nation Beguiled

 

and if you don't believe in

 

Jesus Christ,

 

GOOD LUCK!

China Shows Elite Hand

December 25th, 2010 by

 

The Daily Bell

China Shows Elite Hand

http://www.thedailybell.com/1626/China-Shows-Elite-Hand.html

12 24 10 by  Staff Report

Fresh humiliation for eurozone as China says it will bail out debt-ridden nations … China has said it is willing to bail out debt-ridden countries in the euro zone using its $2.7 trillion overseas investment fund. In a fresh humiliation for Europe, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said it was one of the most important areas for China's foreign exchange investments. The country has already approached struggling European countries with financial aid, including offering to buy Greece's debt in October and promising to buy $4 billion of Portuguese government debt … China's astonishing economic growth has put it on track to overtake America as the world's economic powerhouse within two years, a recent report claimed. But experts believed still be some years before America's leadership role is really challenged – largely because Beijing has given no indication it is ready to take on the responsibility of shepherding the world' economy. This foray into the future of the euro could be a signal from Beijing that it is ready to change that perception. – Daily Mail

Dominant Social Theme: The Chinese prove concerned world citizens after all.

Free-Market Analysis: Like Hamlet, the elves of the Daily Bell have spilled a good deal of ink in the past months wondering if China's leaders themselves secretly back the world-spanning plans of the Anglo-American elite; in other words if the Chinese government has been co-opted by the Anglosphere's vision of a New World Order. This just announced news about Chinese leaders being willing to contemplate a general bail-out of the EU (we'll see what really happens) is further evidence that our soliloquizing was not merely wasted noise. It would seem, after all, that the great powers are in league with one another.

It is a disturbing phenomenon, if so. The EU is a thoroughly corrupt and illegitimate entity that was sold to its constituents falsely as a trade union and now has aspirations of empire. The Chinese Communist government is not any better in our book, and even worse as a matter of fact. As bad as the Napoleonic justice system is in Europe, (you are guilty until proven innocent) the Chinese system is even worse, with few safeguards for the many executions that take place – and the organ harvesting and other gruesome practices that go on after the fact.

But the corruption runs to the center of society so far as we can tell. For us the Chinese system is very similar to the South American one, which is ironically an elitist model. In many South American countries an elitist few animate the financial anatomy. The big banks, financial firms and large industries are owned or cross-owned by this tiny group while the other 99 percent of society trades cell phones on the street. Nominally, these countries are capitalist, or have a mixed economy, but in reality, the stratification is merely authoritarian.

We see the same pattern in both the EU and China. America, too, which used to have the broadest cross-section of control, has obviously centralized in the past decades as well. (The world is beginning to verge on the SA model.) In any event, it is evident and obvious that most if not all of the major financial interests of China are tightly controlled by the Communist party. But after 60 years of rule, it is also interesting to ask "who controls the Chinese party?" In a previous article – G20 Goes Wrong – we speculated as follows:

The "Li" family in China is commonly held to be the most powerful, with the Lis (or Lees) also seen as controlling Hong Kong and prominent in Korea and perhaps even Singapore. There are questions as to whether these disparate familial groups are linked or not and even how much clout the Li family exercises within China. The Lis are said to operate within the communist party as well as outside of it and were also close to Mao.

Our point was that if elite families had emerged in China (or been there all along) then the Western elites would have counterparties with whom they could do business. We found this somewhat speculative however because we believed Chinese society had undergone so much chaos that it would have been hard for pre-Communist elite families to survive.

The announcement that China is willing to provide virtually unlimited funds to the EU would seem, however, to go a good ways toward confirming that there is elite cooperation at the highest levels. It is in fact a powerful weapon that the EU can now deploy. China does not have to spend the money that it has at the ready (presumably American dollars). It merely needs to make clear that these are disposable dollars. That will surely provide a gut-check for bear raiders.

On a strictly practical level, China's potential aid is a clever move. No doubt there are all sorts of behind-the-scenes advantages that will accrue; plus the obvious ones of increased international clout. We have noted many times that sooner or later the Chinese central banking system is going to create a terrible crash in that great country. The Chinese leaders doubtless know it too. (They struggle with price inflation every day.) Right now the economy is still vibrant and the Chinese are doubtless doing what they can – before they cannot.

There is a Chinese crash coming, we believe. It may be large and deep. The artificial Chinese boom has been going on for at least 20 years, and more likely 30. It is evidently and obviously fueled by "hot" money – printed from nothing – that is flooding the country from overseas and increasingly coming from China's own over-generous printing presses. We have pointed to evidences of whole "ghost cities" – built but unoccupied – and the predilection for the entire Chinese middle class to buy shoddily-made, empty condos as "investments." Supposedly, there are over 60 million apartments (there are few houses) that lie empty in China right now; that translates to housing for some 150 million Chinese, or more than 10 percent of the population.

Whenever the Chinese crash does come, it may do a good deal to push the world into a deeper depression. The powers-that-be must be quite aware of the situation; they invented central banking after all, with its ruinous business cycle. They may even have designed the current downturn to consolidate power and set up the further rudiments of world governance. But because the downturn has proven so deep and intractable, the Anglosphere in particular (which is in overall charge) might have become worried about civil insurrection. Hence the efforts to restart economies and to generate some economic traction amidst all the "austerity." Enter the Chinese …

This latest announcement merely reconfirms what we call the "desperation of the elites." Their enterprises have been exposed by the Internet; Europe is aflame with disapproval over austerity; America is in the grip of a growing anti-establishment political movement called the Tea Party. We see plenty of signs that the Anglosphere, which hypothetically orchestrated this out-of-control Greater Recession, is suffering buyer's remorse and trying every way it can to inject cash into failing Western economies.

The elites, which we believe are possessed of almost inconceivable concentrations of wealth, cannot just pour money into countries. There are laws (generated by the elites themselves) and if these laws are contravened, the elites will find themselves in an even more dangerous situation – having made a mockery of the laws they count on for protection. Thus money must be delivered legally … somehow.

We believe the nutty saga of Foundation X, which went public with an offer to pay down Britain's banking imbalances, is possibly evidence of one failed gambit. Now someone at the top has got the idea that the Chinese hoard of American dollars (we presume) can be used to bail out Europe. What is just as fascinating is that the Chinese have gone along. These are very instructive lessons, in our opinion. The elite, panicked, begins to show its hand.

Conclusion: Does the Anglo-American elite really believe that a Red Chinese bailout of a failing authoritarian construct is going to keep the lid on potential civil unrest? The power elite, as we've pointed out, wants chaos – but the current environment, it would seem, is a bridge too far. The chaos must be controlled and moderated. It must be calibrated. This sort of operational methodology may indeed have worked well in the 20th century; but we would maintain that its implementation is far more questionable in the modern era of technological (Internet) truth-telling.

Down Argentine Way

December 22nd, 2010 by

 

The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/1621/Ron-Holand-Down-Argentine-Way.html

Down Argentine Way

By Ron Holland

There are many ominous parallels between Argentina and the U.S. and the question often asked is can America avoid the economic consequences that Argentina suffered from a fascist government combined with government debt and currency collapse? I believe the answer is likely NO!

"There are a lot of ways to ruin an economy. Argentina has experimented with most of them. It has devalued its currency, and revalued it. It has pegged it, and then knocked down the peg. It has regulated, controlled, inspected, taxed and confiscated. Following the 2001 crisis, earnings fell by 30% – with half the nation slipping below the official poverty line. What is remarkable is that the Argentine economy has survived at all." – Bill Bonner

Down Argentine Way was the 1940 film that made a star of Betty Grable, who played an attractive young woman on vacation who fell in love with a wealthy racehorse owner. The storyline actually reflected a common occurrence during the 25 years prior to the film debut.

In the early 20th century, "as rich as an Argentine" was a common expression, often used in connection with poor British aristocrats attempting to marry off their daughters to wealthy Argentineans. Argentina was indeed a wealthy nation; for example, we all know about Harrods Department Store in London. Few realize that during this period of Argentine prosperity, Harrods also ran a store in Buenos Aires.

Buenos Aires is still a beautiful and interesting city. If you visit, you'll learn that despite all the doom and gloom we hear concerning Washington debt and the dwindling dollar, there is life after debt repudiation and currency collapse. The same thing has been proven in Russia, Germany and other nations numerous times. It has even happened twice in the United States.

"May you live in interesting times" – A Chinese Curse

Since 2008, we've certainly lived in interesting times both in politics and in the markets. The US has tried standard Keynesian economic solutions with exploding deficits and trillions in government debt to solve the problems of mania, bubble and bust in real estate and the economy.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." – Albert Einstein

If you haven't noticed, the world is full of people who appear normal but by Einstein's standard are insane. The problem for us is that many of them are politicians and government "leaders."

Let's Take A Quick Look At Some Insanity Closer To Home

Do you really think voting Democrat or Republican is going to give you less government or more liberty?

Will Americans ever vote in overwhelming numbers for a third-party candidate in a national election?

If you continue to lose money with a particular investment advisor, why do you count on the performance improving next year?

The US has been accumulating trillions in national debt since World War Two. Why would we think this will stop with the latest GOP victory in the House of Representatives or with the success of a few Tea Party candidates?

I believe America will continue down the same road toward less liberty and more debt until we reach the end of the road. There is no political solution using our special elite interests controlled two party system. We will trash the dollar and keep building up our national debt until the world stops buying our Treasury obligations.

In recent weeks, China, Brazil, Germany and France have warned the US to get its dollar and debt problems in order, to no avail. This will continue for quite a while, but just as our current foreign policies are opposed by most of the world, so our financial policies are now being questioned by world leaders and economists. One day the world will have had enough of our dollars and will tire of financing our debt. The dollar will cease to be the world's reserve currency.

There is no way to know when this will happen; it could be next year or a decade from now. My view is before the dollar free-falls and investors flee Treasury debt the Washington politicians will be reaching hard for your wealth, to buy more time for their Madoff-style Ponzi schemes. We will see this begin with the 2011 congress and do not let your guard down because a few principled GOP candidates were elected because most are no better than the Democrats.

There is nothing unique about what we are going through as a nation; it has happened many times throughout history, to other countries. Here in the U.S. we have had so much prosperity that we forget that wealth confiscation and economic collapse are more the norm than the exception.

Look Back At Argentina in 1913

It was an important year.

While the British Empire was first in economic size, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy. The nation was blessed with abundant agriculture, millions of acres of farmland, navigable rivers and an accessible port system.

The country's level of industrialization was substantially higher than in many European countries and railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace. Argentina was one of the ten richest nations in the world, and the rate of economic growth from 1870 to 1913 far exceeded that of the United States or Germany.

In 1913 Argentina's GDP reached 72% of the US level. But by 1998 it had fallen to 34%. What went wrong?

Politics and corruption, inflation and currency depreciation were in double digits from 1945 to 1952, from 1956 to 1968 and from 1970 to 1974 And they were in triple digits and then quadruple digits from 1975 to 1990. In 1989, the inflation rate peaked at 5,000%! In one month the Argentine currency fell 64% against the dollar. Finally, on April 28, 1989, the printing presses were shut down because the government ran out of paper for banknotes and the printers went on strike.

Argentina's government defaulted on its debt twice between 1870 and 1914 and again in 1982, 1989, 2002 and 2004 (to foreign creditors). It led the world in selling IOUs to foreign investors, just as America does today.

On December 23, 2001, after GDP had declined 12% for the year, the government announced a moratorium on all foreign debt – $81 billion worth. It was the largest default in history. The 500,000 foreign creditors finally agreed to accept 35 cents on the dollar. China and other creditors of the US government should be looking at what happened in Argentina very closely.

More Ominous Parallels Between Argentina Then & America Today

In 1916 a new president was elected in Argentina; he had a foreign sounding name I can't hope to pronounce it but it is spelled Juan Hipólitodel Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Irigoyen Alem. He led a party called the Radicals, and their slogan was "fundamental change," with an appeal to the lower middle class. Doesn't this platform and campaign rhetoric sound familiar? "Change we can believe in" with a different phrasing.

He advocated a mandatory pension program, like the mandatory or "automatic" IRA" being pushed by the Democrats and some Republicans (including deep thinkers at the supposedly conservative Heritage Foundation).

He wanted mandatory health insurance and supported construction of low-income housing to stimulate the economy. Basically, like the American bailouts of 2008, in Argentina the state assumed control of a vast swath of the country's economy and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.

Does This Remind You Of the United States Today?

With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the Argentine government's payouts quickly became overly generous. Soon the government outlays surpassed the value of the forced taxpayer contributions. Put simply, it quickly became underfunded, much like our Social Security and Medicare programs are today.

The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Peron. He preached a fascist and corporatist philosophy much like Mussolini in Italy. He and his charismatic wife, Evita, first targeted their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich. But as time went on the targeted group expanded to include most of the propertied middle class, who also became an enemy to be defeated and looted. Under Peron, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.

Again, does this sound familiar? Remember that the automobile industry bailout was directed far more toward supporting unions and their underfunded retirement and health plans than helping GM or Chrysler. It was the same on the GOP side when Washington bailed out much of the corrupt and failing big players in the American and foreign banking systems. Trillions for Wall Street and zero for main street.

In Argentina, high taxes and economic mismanagement continued to take their toll, even after Peron had been driven from office. His socialist/populist rhetoric and ignorance of free-market economics remained on the political scene as Argentina's federal government continued to spend far beyond its means, just like America today.

Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, which is usually the final stage of collapse brought on by protectionist policies, inflated salaries and bureaucratic regulation of the economy. The Argentinean government's practice of printing money to pay its debts crushed the economy when inflation reached heights reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.

By 1994, Argentina's public pensions – the equivalent of Social Security – had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn't enough. So Argentina implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes and a personal tax on wealth. These crushed the private sector. I fear we will soon see a similar increase in Social Security payroll taxes over the next decade in the US.

A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue seniors' pensions was attempted. But by 2001 even those funds had been raided by the government, the monies replaced with defaulted Argentine government bonds. (You can read more about how this could happen in the United States in my)

(Get Ready for the Obama Retirement Trap.) at http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland12.1.html

By 2002, the Argentine government's fiscal irresponsibility had produced a national economic crisis as severe as America's Great Depression.

Our problems promise to produce worse. The dollar is still the world's reserve currency, and our fall will resound in a way that Argentina's did not. Germany, China, France and other nations have warned us that there is limited tolerance for continued U.S. money printing. The jury is still out; but if the printing continues, America is not going to like the verdict.

America Runs the Risk of Being Blamed for the Greatest Depression

There are, as we have seen, parallels between Argentina and the road the US has taken. Following the 2008 meltdown, the entire world is in a tough situation. The US, predictably, has decided on currency depreciation to "solve" its problems. Germany, China and Russia express their displeasure.

The United States, doubtless, will be blamed for the coming meltdown. Other countries fear quite rightly what they have seen before, a tidal wave of repudiation and currency depreciation that could dramatically change the world. They know the US will postpone the inevitable – but sooner or later the cumulative impact of profligacy, waste and corruption will become unstoppable. The US economy will likely implode, taking the current world order with it.

We are living in the midst of a paradigm shift; the Internet is having an impact on politics, information and financial markets. Such a transformation has happened before, with Gutenberg's printing press in the 1500s, which destroyed the existing power structure and left Europe in turmoil. The invention of the press did to the religion, to the state and to the economy of the 16th century what the Internet is doing to Western society today.

This is an exciting transition period, when every established institution, from the FED to the two-party political system to Wall Street to our banking system, is being questioned and challenged by the alternative press of which we are part. Truth and change may be good in the long run, but in the near term they stress the system much like national bankruptcy and debt repudiation did in Argentina.

America Is the New Argentina!

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to always tell the difference." –Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

Right now we can't change the direction our nation is heading, but with courage we can still take action now to defend our wealth while we work toward political change. The economic lesson to be learned from the Argentina experience is wealth and resources can be destroyed by big government and financial mismanagement. The United States is following a path similar to Argentina's. Our political and financial leaders are doing the same thing that those in Argentina did and somehow expecting the outcome to be different this time.

The results will not be any different. Protect your wealth, and help us warn and educate the public through your support of the foundations like the Mises Institute and the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking.

Editor's Note: This is Part 1, of a speech given in November 2010 on a FreedomFest financial cruise in Argentina. Ron Holland doesn't want our nation to go Down Argentine Way but urges readers to prepare for the worst, which will make Argentina seem like a holiday picnic in comparison.


Ron Holland is the author of three books, numerous special reports and hundreds of articles on investment and political topics, many of which focus on the interplay between politics and the investment markets. Selections of his essays can be found in the archives of LewRockwell.com and The Daily Bell.com. He also has participated actively in the development of innovative financial structures, including the first Swiss franc annuity licensed for sale in the U.S.

Originally from North Carolina, he lived and worked in Geneva, Switzerland from 2003 to 2004. He currently divides his time between the U.S. and Europe.

Mr. Holland is a graduate of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, with a degree in Banking and Finance. In his 30-year career, he has worked as a retirement planning consultant, the manager of a bank trust department and the President of a U.S.-registered securities broker. He has held various securities and insurance licenses.

He currently is Chief Editor of Freedom Matters, a contributing editor to several newsletters dealing with political and investing topics (including Swiss Confidential), a member of the Advisory Board of Zurich-based BFI-Consulting and Chairman of the Advisory Board of The Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking. He speaks frequently at financial, professional and political conferences in the North and South America, Europe and the Middle East.

 


SEO Powered By SEOPressor